Through the years, arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution has gained prominence because it promotes party autonomy with minimal court intervention, amongst others.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of derivatives law will be aware of the controversy created by section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.1 Differing interpretations of 2(a)(iii) have emerged in litigation in London and the United States since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in London in Lomas v. JFB Firth Rixson Inc² brings significant clarity from the English perspective. The decision upholds the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) favoured by the derivatives market.

An examination of the impact of an insolvent respondent in an arbitration.

In 2008, the catastrophic effect of the credit crunch spread to most world economies, touching governments, companies and individuals alike. As in previous recessions, insolvency is affecting increasing numbers of individuals and companies. UK government figures show that individual insolvencies went up by 8.8% in the third quarter of 2008, with corporate liquidations up by 10.5% in the same period. Commentators predict that this trend will only accelerate through 2009.

Summary

On 1 July 2009, UNCITRAL adopted the Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation. The Practice Guide provides a useful reference source on some practical aspects of cooperation and communication to deal with many of the conflicts and tensions between stakeholders and jurisdictions inevitable in cross-border cases. To ease these tensions, it is often essential for creditors and, importantly, the courts concerned to reach agreement about how the process will be handled.

International context

In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.

Background

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands granted common law recognition and assistance to the foreign Liquidators of a Cayman Islands company post Rubin v Eurofinance and Singularis Holdings Limited v PwC.

In Re China Agrotech Holdings Limited Ltd (FSD 157 of 2017 (NSJ)), the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands ("Cayman Court") granted Liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong leave to present and consent to a scheme of arrangement on behalf of China Agrotech Limited (the "Company") based on a common law discretion.

The Hong Kong court in Re The Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Limited (in liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) (08/02/2018, HCMP833/2017), [2018] HKCFI 277 (Re Supreme Tycoon) has, for the first time, granted recognition and assistance to foreign liquidators appointed in a creditors' voluntary winding-up.

JPLs play an unheralded but crucial mediating role in Bermuda

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.

In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.