In the recent decision Sian Participation v Halimeda (Sian), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council) held on a BVI appeal that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed merely because the underlying debt is subject to a generally-worded arbitration agreement.

On 11 June 2024, the judgment of Re BHS Group Limited (In Liquidation) (BHS) was handed down by Leech J in the English High Court, bringing in key developments and clarifications on directors duties in the zone of insolvency.

This is especially relevant in offshore jurisdictions such as Guernsey where English insolvency legislation is often replicated in local legislation. English common law remains highly persuasive in relation to directors duties and claims by liquidators against former directors are relatively common.

Summary of claims

In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) further outlined the requirements for the avoidance of a transaction under insolvency law on the grounds of wilful disadvantage to creditors pursuant to section 133 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO).

Background

Following an overhaul of the Singapore insolvency regime which came into force on 30 July 2020, the insolvency and restructuring framework was consolidated in the omnibus Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). One of the key features of the IRDA was to amend the then-existing construct of statutory avoidance actions in Singapore.

Overview of statutory avoidance provisions following IRDA

Having caught your eye with the catchy heading, don’t stop reading if you are involved in the management or directorship of any business in the Pacific.

Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (“BLRC”) was very clear while setting out the objectives of the new insolvency law for the country and speedy resolution/decision making in an insolvency situation was stated to be one of such foremost objectives. Fragmented laws governing an insolvency and lack of a cohesive framework governing the rights of various stakeholders during insolvency was identified as a primary reason for inefficiency of the pre-existing legal framework.

Acquiring an insolvent corporation’s operations during a legal proceeding (rehabilitation, recovery, or debt settlement) presents numerous business opportunities. However, the holding of an insolvency auction, an integral part of the sale, may threaten these opportunities. During a sale, the insolvent corporation’s trustee (or the administrators) needs to maximize proceeds from the auction to pay creditors. Therefore, the trustee must consider offers from additional bidders before accepting a proposal.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code" & “IBC”) has been widely acclaimed as a transformative legislative framework in India, representing a significant departure from previous insolvency laws by emphasizing efficient resolution processes and the professionalization of insolvency services.

Introduction

In the dynamic and rapidly evolving global marketplace, particularly in fast-growing economies like India, there are ever-growing commercial transactions amongst entities within India as also in international transactions amongst entities within India and outside of India.

Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code“), the debt resolution regime in India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also undergone a significant transformation, marking a departure from its traditional labyrinthine processes to a more streamlined and effective framework.