Background and purpose of the proposals
On 8th January proposals for a new ‘Prepackaged Insolvency Resolution Process’ ("PIRP") were issued by the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs for public consultation, and we have considered them from a foreign perspective.
The proposals are continuing evidence of the Indian Government’s admirable ongoing commitment to swift further development and improvement of the insolvency framework that was introduced five years ago in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (“IBC”).
The High Court has dismissed a strike out application in respect of a claim brought under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in respect of an alleged transaction defrauding creditors, holding that it is not necessary to prove a freestanding connection between the defendant and England, separate from the litigation itself, in order to obtain relief: Suppipat v Narongdej [2020] EWHC 3191 (Comm).
The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil.
Yesterday, the Government introduced legislation before Parliament, in the form of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which will make radical changes to the UK insolvency regime. The goal of the legislation is to prevent otherwise viable companies from failing as a result of current events.
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Dalian Huarui Heavy Industry International Company Ltd v Clyde & Co Australia [2020] WASC 132 (available here), demonstrates that the use of interim measures to provide security for an amount in dispute can be a very powerful remedy when structured through the creation of a trust.
With the aim of managing the potential ramifications of the measures that have so far been implemented in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, the Spanish Government has approved Royal Decree-law 16/2020, of 28 April, of procedural and organisational measures to tackle COVID-19 connected to the administration of justice.
During the COVID-19 crisis, many companies are facing unexpected financial distress, and taking steps to stabilise their business and bolster their finances.
Many directors will not have experienced these issues before, and should be aware of how their duties are impacted when the company is in financial distress.
This guide has been prepared on the basis of Hong Kong law principles. Many of the principles will also be applicable to other common law jurisdictions.
How are companies responding to the current crisis?
In AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33, Justice Steven Chong, delivering the judgment of the Court, (1) overturned the decision of the High Court which allowed a creditor (VTB Bank) to proceed with its winding up petition against a debtor (AnAn), and (2) upheld the arbitration agreement pursuant to which the dispute underlying the debt should first be resolved.
The High Court has ruled that directors breached their duties by taking up the company’s business opportunity for their own benefit, even if the company was unable to take up that opportunity by reason of its financial position: Davies v Ford & Ors [2020] EWHC 686.
A mere few weeks ago, the hypothesis that the COVID-19 virus would not affect the African continent was still being widely propagated. The theory that the virus does not survive in warm weather has since been debunked and the number of African countries that have recorded confirmed cases of coronavirus is growing rapidly. On 18 March 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, warned that Africa has to prepare for the worst.