In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently delivered a decision that is poised to significantly influence insolvency proceedings. The case, cited as British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246, marks the first time an appellate court has addressed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in receivership contexts. This ruling provides crucial insights into the court's reasoning and its implications for legal and non-legal professionals alike.

Background and core issue

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

In Joint and Several Liquidators of Yes! E-Sports Asia Holdings Limited (in Liquidation) v Holman Fenwick Willan (A Firm) [2024] HKCFI 1197, the Court confirmed that solicitors should produce documents of former insolvent clients to liquidators when a request is made under section 286B(1)(d) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32 (CWUMPO).

Hellard & others -v- OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & others [202] EWHC 1783 (Ch)

In dealing with whether trustees in bankruptcy might potentially be breaching UK sanctions legislation by allowing Russian creditors to participate in UK liquidation proceedings, the Court has considered recent authorities on whether a designated person can be said to directly or indirectly own or control an entity and has offered its own perspective on how the relevant wording in the legislation should be construed.

The background facts

In In the matter of Academy Construction & Development Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] NSWSC 808, the New South Wales Supreme Court had to determine whether to terminate a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) on the basis that it was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory.

Key Takeaways

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.

FinReg Update [Jurisdiction] 2024 Regulatory Update Cayman – Q3 2024 Quick Fire Updates mourant.com 1. CRS reporting reminders The Department for International Tax Cooperation (DITC) issued an Updates Bulletin in June 2024 reminding Cayman Islands financial Institutions (FIs) of the following common reporting standard (CRS) annual reporting obligations: CRS Filing Declaration – required by all FIs with a CRS reporting obligation (deadline 31 July 2024) • FIs must make a CRS return to the DITC for each Reportable Account maintained during the reporting period.

重整程序作为困境企业摆脱债务沉疴、回归正常生产经营的有效路径，而重整计划执行可谓其最后一公里。近年来，囿于疫情突发、经济形势波动等诸多因素，重整计划执行不能的案例呈现增多趋势。一旦重整计划陷入执行不能境地，宣告破产便成了悬在重整参与方头上的达摩克利斯之剑。为避免直接宣告破产导致重整参与方的利益遭受严重损害，《企业破产法》及相关规定提供了重整计划变更、执行期限延长、监督期限延长（本文统称“重整计划执行变更”）等缓冲机制。本文以涉及重整计划执行变更的公开案例作为观察起点，试归纳实践中重整计划执行变更制度的具体实施情况，并探讨可能衍生的新旧重整计划衔接问题及处理建议。

一、重整计划执行变更观察综述

（一）现行规定

Another groundbreaking judgment from the ADGM Courts in the NMC matter 📢🇦🇪👨🏻⚖️ and another example of the ADGM Courts drawing important parallels between ADGM and English law.

English proceedings re NMC Health Plc are also ongoing. In his judgment at CFI on 8 July 2024, Sir Justice Andrew Smith found that:

1. The ADGM Courts can make an order in respect of the fraudulent carrying on of the business of a company prior to the time at which that company was continued in the ADGM.

​​A business rescue plan (a plan) should ideally benefit all affected persons in the best way possible, and a vote in support of its adoption or rejection should not be premised purely on self-interest while disregarding the collective benefit of all affected persons.

A recent High Court judgment highlighted this fact, setting aside the major creditors' votes on the grounds of inappropriateness, and investigating the creditors' conduct during the business rescue process.