The Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the High Court was right to restrict the assistance an English court could give to a Russian trustee in bankruptcy at common law, refusing to allow immoveable property situated in England to be administered by the trustee as part of the foreign bankruptcy proceedings: Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2022] EWCA Civ 35.

In another leap forward for cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the Hong Kong Court has issued its very first letter of request to a Mainland Court requesting recognition and assistance of Hong Kong liquidators under the new arrangement for mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings introduced on 14 May 2021 (New Arrangement, which we wrote about

Companies planning to resist a winding up petition and seek an adjournment on the ground of progressing a restructuring plan are reminded to produce timely and sufficient evidence in support of their application for an adjournment, in particular evidence of creditors’ support, provides the Hong Kong Companies Court (Court) in Re Founder Information (Hong Kong) Limited [2021] HKCFI 311.

Statutory demand is a common and important tool in the winding up process. But recently, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has reminded us that it is by no means a must.

In what is likely to be one of this year’s landmark insolvency decisions, the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale has considered the interaction between insolvency set-off and adjudication, though the judgment is likely to have application to other dispute resolution processes including litigation and arbitration.

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.

The Australian Federal Government has announced today (22 March 2020) that it intends to make temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.

In particular, the government intends to relieve directors from the risk of personal liability for insolvent trading, where the debts are incurred in the ordinary course of business.

In Nicholas Stewart Wood and David John Standish (as the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Karl Eric Watkin) v Kate Rebecca Watkin [2019] EWHC 1311 (Ch), trustees in bankruptcy sought to establish that a bankrupt (theBankrupt) was the sole beneficial owner of three properties (theProperties), ostensibly purchased by him for his adult daughter. The High Court refused the application and held that the Bankrupt was not the sole beneficial owner of the Properties.

Singapore’s new (the Omnibus Bill) was passed by parliament on 1 October 2018 and is expected to come into force later this year or in early 2019.

The Omnibus Bill, which was introduced to parliament on 10 September 2018, consolidates Singapore's corporate and personal insolvency and restructuring laws into a single enactment. It also generally updates the insolvency legislation and introduces a significant number of new provisions, particularly in respect of corporate insolvency.