In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to reject an application to set aside a statutory demand. The appellant had argued (among other things) that an arbitration clause in his agreement with the respondent required their dispute to be referred to arbitration.

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS “Gagging orders”: an office holder’s secret weapon December 2016 Introduction Practitioners are fully aware of the extensive powers available under ss 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allowing administrators and liquidators as office holders (OHs) to require individuals and organisations to disgorge information.

In Smailes and another v McNally and another^[i]the High Court refused the claimant's application for relief from sanctions, finding the claimant's failure in respect of its disclosure obligations under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 31) amounted to a significant and serious breach of an "unless order".

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA & others v Akers & another [2014] serves to emphasise that third party reports commissioned by liquidators to enable them to consider whether litigation should be commenced in order to make recoveries for the benefit of creditors will not always attract litigation privilege.

There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

The draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009 has now been published detailing the proposed changes to the Insolvency Act 1986. The aim of the changes is to reduce costs and the administrative burden on users of the legislation and subsequently benefi t the creditors of insolvent companies and individuals through more fl exible procedures and increased dividends.  

Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others¹ [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.

The background

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act ("the Act") came into expedited effect on 26 June 2020 and is intended to maximise the chance of corporate survival and reduce the threat of personal liability on directors during this unprecedented economic crisis.

D&O insurers should be clear about one thing: this Act will not help them and in fact it could well make things worse.

The Act

On 11 July 2019, HMRC published a policy paper discussing measures which are aimed at those  taxpayers who “unfairly seek to reduce their tax bill by misusing the insolvency of companies”.  This will be achieved by making directors and other persons connected to those companies jointly and severally liable for the avoidance, evasion or “phoenixism” debts of the corporate entity.

An explanatory note and draft legislation set out the conditions that must be satisfied in order to enable an authorised HMRC officer to issue a “joint liability notice” to an individual.

Welcome to the February 2017 edition of our wealth and trusts quarterly digest. The digest provides up to date commentary and analysis on key sector developments. Our tax, wealth and trusts teams are able to provide a wide ranging service to assist you and your clients in responding to market trends and legal developments. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any concerns you may have and always welcome feedback on the content of our publications. Feature When can trustees exercise their right of retention?