*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are using Checkpoint, the links can be found in the Checkpoint PDF at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Insolvency Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 27 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editors: Professor Rosalind Mason and Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n Applications for Aid and Assistance in Respect of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings in New Zealand since the Enactment of the Insolvency (Cross-Border) Act 2006 (NZ)<\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Trish Keeper<\/p>\n This article analyses the discretion available to a New Zealand court to grant assistance in response to an application for inward assistance in relation to a cross-border insolvency (CBI) proceeding since the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 <\/em>(NZ) (ICB Act<\/em>) came into force in 2008. Specifically, the article considers the discretionary power given to the Courts under s 8 of the Act to provide aid and assistance. This section has been held to apply when an application in respect of an overseas foreign proceeding does not meet the requirements for the Model Law rules in Sch 1 of the Act. The Model Law rules are based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Three High Court decisions to date have considered this discretion in s 8. The article identifies the factors that the courts have taken into account when deciding whether to provide aid and assistance under the provision. These are the policy objectives of the Act, the private international law principle of comity and the universalist approach to CBI at common law. The article then discusses these factors and whether international common law developments have altered the approach that New Zealand courts will take to future applications for aid and assistance under s 8. It also discusses the limits of s 8 in terms of the jurisdiction to remit New Zealand-located funds and assets and possible amendments to the ICB Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Evolution of Corporate Rescue in Singapore<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Casey G Watters and Paul J Omar<\/p>\n Singapore has recently adopted changes to the structure of its scheme of arrangement that result in the procedure being seen as a hybrid between traditional common law schemes and the US Chapter 11 procedure. The new scheme model adds to the range of procedures already available in Singaporean law that contemplate restructuring as a possible outcome and, together with changes to the cross-border framework in insolvency, offer the prospect that Singapore could become a regional, if not global, hub for restructuring activity. This article looks at the corporate rescue framework as it has developed to include the latest reforms.<\/p>\n RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM NEW ZEALAND<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Professor Lynne Taylor<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – Insolv LJ Vol 27 No 1 Contents<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or here: Checkpoint – Insolv LJ Vol 27 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n