So you have a freezing order against a start-up company, now what? Can that start-up use the assets which are the subject of your order, or any of its other assets, to continue to pursue its risky business, or must it stay idle and wait for the inevitable?

In the current period of flux, lenders should review their finance documents regarding protections and/or vulnerabilities; and where exposed to industries particularly affected by the COVID-19 outbreak may consider (i) invoking provisions to demand early repayment and/or to preclude further lending; and (ii) whether there is material benefit in doing so. They should also consider pre-emptive steps with a view to staving off critical defaults.

Yesterday, in an 8-1 decision, the US Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

It is not uncommon to see that the law governing a loan document is different from that of the debtor company’s place of incorporation. Can the rights of the lender be altered by a restructuring plan sanctioned in the latter? The English court said “no” in a recent case1, applying the longstanding Gibbs rule that also applies under Hong Kong law.

Background

The Honourable Mr Justice Harris, the incumbent Companies Judge, has continued the recent development of cross-border assistance in insolvency matters. An example is his Lordship's decision in Re Centaur Litigation SPC (In Liquidation)(HCMP 3389/2015, 10 March 2016), which relates to an application by the liquidators of three companies incorporated and being wound up in the Cayman Islands.

Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report)

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Ordinance Cap 273 (TPRAI) in Hong Kong allows third parties to claim against the wrongdoer’s liability  insurer in the event of insolvency. The Supreme Court of New Zealand (the country’s highest court)  found in BFSL 2007 Ltd (in liquidation) v. Steigrad [2013] NZSC 156 (known as the Bridgecorp case)  that under the equivalent statutory provision in New Zealand, payment of defence costs do not  reduce the limit of indemnity.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday on the combined appeals of Nortel GmbH (In Administration) ("Nortel") and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("Lehman Brothers") (together, the "Appellants") against the Pensions Regulator ("tPR").

The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)¹. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:

Insolvency of your client or customer is bad news, even if, these days, it comes as no surprise.