The Principal Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in its recent order, Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Singh Nain & Ors., has inter alia held that Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not bar passing of any orders under Section 66 of the IBC against the resolution professional during operation of the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC.

The EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks (the“Directive”) precipitated a pan-European review by Member States of their corporate restructuring statutes. Several Member States (including Germany and the Netherlands), as well as the United Kingdom, made sweeping changes to their insolvency processes, in some cases introducing entirely new restructuring mechanisms. By contrast, Ireland preserved its examinership regime, introduced over 30 years ago.

Directors who oppose company windings up with little more than a hope that a restructuring proposal may bear fruit may have to weigh their actions carefully going forward, following a recent decision by the Hong Kong Companies Court.

The Jersey insolvency legislative and common law framework provides an adaptable and commercially focussed regime for the supervision and handling of the liquidation and restructuring of Jersey entities. This note addresses the different mechanisms by which Jersey incorporated companies may be wound up.

Winding up of a solvent company

A solvent, or "summary", winding up commences where the shareholders voluntarily pass, or are deemed to pass, and file, a special resolution to do so and the directors have confirmed either that the company:

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The respondents to a claim brought by the joint liquidators of BHS Group companies have successfully struck out parts of claims brought under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) on the basis of open-ended pleadings as to the relevant date of knowledge that insolvent liquidation was inevitable and trading should have ceased.

Chandler v Wright and others [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26 August 2022 has held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

简介

香港法院过往一直承认公司在其注册成立所在的司法管辖区展开的外地清盘程序。但最近在Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789一案中，夏利士法官提出一种新的方法，承认在公司的「主要利益中心」所在的司法管辖区进行的外地清盘程序。夏利士法官认为，就香港法院承认及协助外地清盘人而言，外地清盘程序在公司注册成立地点进行这一点并不足够，也非必要。

背景

利标品牌有限公司（「该公司」）是一间在百慕达注册成立，并在香港联合交易所上市的投资控股公司。由于新型肺炎疫情持续，该公司及其附属公司的业务面临严峻困难，因此该公司董事会认为展开清盘程序符合该公司的利益，并向百慕达法院申请委任临时清盘人（「临时清盘人」），授以有限度权力以协助该公司重组债务。然而，重组并不成功，百慕达法院于2021年11月5日对该公司发出清盘令。

Introduction

A bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from pre-bankruptcy debts or liabilities. The purpose is to give the debtor a “fresh start” from excessive debts that cannot be repaid, except in certain situations such as where the debt arises from deceitful or fraudulent conduct. In Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that securities sanctions are excluded from bankruptcy discharge.

The Hong Kong commercial and insolvency disputes team acted for the successful appellant in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP CACV 393/2021 [2022] HKCA 1297.