In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

When the Petitioner issued the petition to wind up the Company on 12 January 2021, the Company was already subject to another winding up petition in HCCW 410/2019 and the Petitioner was aware of the first petition. The Court reiterated that a creditor should not issue a petition if a petition has already been issued against the relevant debtor company. The Petitioner argued that there are exceptional circumstances, which justified the second petition: Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36. It was said that the progress of the first petition was dilatory.

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.

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of July 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR BASED ON INVOICES CAN BE ISSUED IN FORM-3 INSTEAD OF FORM-4.

Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

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.