In today's global economy, cross-border structures, frequently including an offshore entity, have become familiar to office holders around the world. 

However, the territorial limits of a court’s powers can mean that such structures present obstacles with which office holders attempting to conduct an orderly and efficient winding up of a debtor's affairs need to familiarise themselves.

The principle of modified universalism mandates that, within the constraints of public policy, courts should co-operate across jurisdictions. 

In Re Cosmos Machinery Enterprises Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2088, Mr Justice Harris corrected some privatisation scheme practice and issued the following guidance:

(1) Rule 2.10 of the Code on Takeovers and Mergers (“Rule 2.10”) did not prevent offeror concert parties from voting on privatisation schemes.

The indoor management rule is a common principle, codified in Ugandan law. However, recent decisions from courts have applied the rule inconsistently, and have been a cause of concern as to what reliance can be placed on a company resolution by a party contracting with a company.

What is the indoor management rule?

Facts

In the recent decision of the Malaysian High Court in Re Top Builders Capital Bhd & Ors [2021] 10 MLJ 327("Top Builders"), Ong Chee Kwan JC examines the proof of debt exercise in a scheme of arrangement ("SOA") and the guiding principles governing the granting of leave to proceed with legal proceedings against a financially distressed company that has obtained a restraining order (moratorium) pursuant to a SOA.

On August 15, 2021, Aluminum Shapes LLC, a Delair, New Jersey-based aluminum fabricator and processing company, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 21-16520). The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and liabilities.

In a recent judgment, the English Court of Appeal gives guidance on when a non-party costs order will be made against directors or shareholders of an insolvent company engaged in litigation. The judgment will be of interest to all involved in insolvency based litigation.

A snap shot of the courts’ jurisdiction to make costs orders against non-parties

The recent interim decision of the Federal of Australia in Michele Bottiglieri Armatore SPA, Michele Bottigliere Armatore S.P.A [2021] FCA 795 highlights the Australian courts' willingness to recognise cross-border insolvencies in the context of foreshadowed arrests of vessels entering Australian waters.

Introduction

As Singapore continues to advance its position as an international hub for restructuring and insolvency, it has implemented a number of changes to its legislative framework. One of the key developments has been the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency ("Model Law"), which has been given force of law in Singapore. The Model Law provides procedural mechanisms to facilitate the conduct of cross-border insolvencies.

On May 24, 2021, the U.S.