When the restructuring officer regime was introduced, it was assumed by many that joint provisional liquidators would no longer be appointed for restructuring purposes, having been overtaken by the new regime.  The recent decision of Re Kingkey Financial International (Holdings) Ltd suggests that this assumption may not be sound.  It also raises several interesting points regarding the restructuring officer regime that merit further consideration.  This article considers the Kingkey case, and the points arising from it

In my most recent blog post, I provided some tips for creditors who find themselves in the Subchapter V arena. This is somewhat of a follow-up to that one.

ICC Judge Mullen’s judgment in Sriram v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2024] EWHC 853 (Ch) follows an application by the bankrupt, Ms Sriram, to annul a bankruptcy order made against her on a petition of HMRC in circumstances in which proper service of both the statutory demand and the petition was contested and in which her capacity to understand the proceedings against her was also in issue.

Under sections 90-15 and 90–20 of Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), a liquidator may apply to the court for directions and judicial advice in winding up.

Purpose of Judicial Advice

The purpose of judicial advice was to give the liquidator advice as to the proper course of action to take in the liquidation, as noted by Goldberg J in Re Ansett Australia Ltd and Korda [2002] FCA 90 (Ansett).

In Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited[2024] HKCA 299, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Barma and G Lam JJA) held that the approach regarding exclusive jurisdiction clauses in bankruptcy proceedings laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in Re Lam Kwok Hung Guy, ex p Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (2023) 26 HKCFAR 119 (“Guy Lam CFA”) (upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgm

The UK National Security and Investment Act came into force on 4 January 2022, significantly extending the UK Government’s power to investigate and intervene in transactions which pose, or could pose, threats to the UK’s national security.

Bygge- og anlægsbranchen har i de seneste år oplevet en kraftig stigning i antallet af konkurser og toppede foreløbigt i 2023 med hele 1.282 erklærede konkurser. Da konkurserne ofte er forbundet med store tab, hvis de indtræder under et igangværende byggeri, har tendensen i stigende grad aktualiseret en belysning af de muligheder, der er for at sikre sig imod sådanne tab.

On 1 April 2024, the Companies Commission of Malaysia issued the Guidelines for the Adjudication of Proof of Debts under section 369B of the Companies Act 2016 (“the Guidelines”).

Bankruptcies with large tort claims are common:

• some involve a limited number of claimants (e.g., a drunk driver hits a bus or a restaurant serves bad food one evening); and
• others have large numbers of claimants, some of whom won’t even be known for at least another decade (e.g., asbestos cases).

Often in tort bankruptcies, the total amount of claims overwhelms the debtor’s ability to pay: i.e., existing assets, insurance coverages and projected future income streams are, simply, insufficient.

The landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) decision of Re Guy Lam[1] has generated numerous articles written by practitioners and academics on the interaction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the court’s jurisdiction to wind up or bankrupt a debtor. Following the CFA’s decision, the Guy Lam bankruptcy continued to impact our legal landscape when the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the treatment of the costs and expenses of the bankrupt trustees (for whom TDW acted) in circumstances where the bankruptcy order was overturned in appeal[2].