The recent case of Dolfin Asset Services Ltd v Stephens & Anor (Re Dolfin Financal (UK) Ltd) [2023] EWHC 123 (Ch) (“Dolfin“) concerned a special administration, but it has relevance to administrators more generally. In particular, when it comes to the judge’s view of what is meant by the word “consider” – which is phrase used in the insolvency legislation when it comes to making decisions.

In its recent judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has provided guidance as to how an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement impacts on the ability to bring a bankruptcy or winding up petition in Hong Kong. In light of prior inconsistent judgments on the issue, the CFA decision provides welcome clarity as to the impact of exclusive jurisdiction clause on insolvency proceedings and when it may still be appropriate to commence them.

Background

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Ltd (In Administration)¹, the High Court considered whether charges granted by a satellite business over certain equipment and intangible assets (the Relevant Assets) were fixed or floating.

In a previous article, 'In case of emergency: Using emergency power provisions to appoint a voluntary administrator' we discussed the use of emergency powers in a company’s constitution to appoint a voluntary administrator to a company, as well as the use of court assistance to cure defects in an appointment.

Re: GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM [2023] HKCFA 9 (date of decision: 4 May 2023)

Introduction

In the recent decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal set out the proper approach to a bankruptcy petition where the parties had agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a specified foreign court.

1. At the Debt Restructuring in the Asia-Pacific seminar on 22 September 2022 co-organised by Singapore International Commercial Court, INSOL International & INSOL Asia, Singapore’s Second Minister for Law Mr Edwin Tong SC announced that Singapore will be undertaking “a root-and-branch study”^[2] of the judicial management regime in Singapore.

In its recent judgement in Re Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch) ('Avanti') the High Court decided that in some circumstances a charge can take effect as a fixed charge despite the chargor having some flexibility to dispose of assets without the consent of the charge holder.

Background

This article is the second in a series of three articles which examine the key features of a securitisation vehicle and the advantages of utilising an Orphan SPV in the Cayman Islands for a securitisation transaction.

In Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd, [1] the Court offered a timely warning to liquidators of the dangers of adopting and acting on an incorrect understanding of the ownership of contested property. The Court ordered damages against the liquidator personally, despite his position as agent for the company in liquidation.

Background

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.