The new , currently expected to be enacted in mid-June 2020, is likely significantly to impact many supplies of goods and services to companies that are or may be in financial distress. However, the effects are sufficiently far-reaching that they could impact the balance of rights in all supply chains and particularly the drafting of supply contracts, with an impact on both suppliers and their customers or clients.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) over the weekend announced a number of proposed changes to UK insolvency law in response to the COVID-19 crisis.

The Court of First Instance has recently helpfully summarised the legal position on schemes of arrangement under both Hong Kong law and English law. Notably, it has called for further development in cross-border coordination in order to avoid the trouble of parallel insolvency proceedings and it has raised a red flag in relation to detailed disclosure of restructuring costs: Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited [2019] HKCFI 2531.

Summary

A recent decision of the High Court of Hong Kong examined a liquidator’s powers to distribute a Hong Kong company’s assets in the PRC (being an RMB balance held in a Mainland bank account, a chose in action governed by Mainland law and subject to foreign exchange restrictions). Particularly, the Court looked at an unusual set of facts which meant there was some doubt as to whether the liquidator’s proposed distribution was in keeping with the key insolvency principles of:

1. collectivity;

Con la asunción de estas dos autopistas, la empresa pública SEITTSA, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ya gestiona la explotación y el mantenimiento de todas las que han entrado en fase de liquidación concursal, faltando únicamente por asumir la AP-41, “Madrid-Toledo”, que aún no ha llegado a dicha fase.

Revierten así al Estado, las dos últimas autopistas de peaje en fase de liquidación, después de que el Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 6 de Madrid, aprobase el plan de liquidación de las sociedades concesionarias.

In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.

The Singapore Government has just passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill 13/2017 (the Bill), which contains major changes to Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws. As planned, these changes are expected to come into effect at the latest by the second quarter of 2017,1 and will be a major shake-up to the restructuring landscape of the region.

The lack of a modern bankruptcy law, and possible criminal prosecution for debt default, has long been a major issue for entrepreneurs in many parts of the Middle East. That may all be about to change in the UAE as the Cabinet has approved a new draft Bankruptcy Law which aims to encourage foreign investment, boost investor confidence and assist SMEs in managing their business operations. That law is expected to be introduced in early 2017.

INTRODUCTION

The use of trusts for asset protection purposes is well established and – in principle – not improper. However, recent history has seen increasing attempts by creditors to have transfers of assets unwound. A recent UK Supreme Court case saw the Court effectively achieve this by way of a resulting trust finding.1 This article considers the issue from a different angle: insolvency legislation.

In the recent landmark decision of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 156, the Singapore High Court confirmed that litigation funding may, in the context of insolvency and under the appropriate circumstances, be permitted in Singapore.