New Square Chambers

Alex has represented officeholders, directors, shareholders and individuals in personal and corporate insolvency disputes and restructurings.

He heavily assisted (led by David Lord KC) on litigation concerning the priority of a floating charge holder and the circumstances in which a solicitor’s lien may be preserved or waived in a cross-border insolvency dispute heard before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (on appeal from the BVI): Re Peak Hotels and Resorts Ltd [2022] UKSC 35. He also as a pupil helped advise on the merits of an appeal challenging a liquidator’s assignment of a cause of action: Lock v Stanley [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

He is currently acting in two related insolvency proceedings before the BVI Commercial Court. The first concerns a petition to liquidate a dissolved foreign company of Bahrain (led by Robert Weekes KC) and applications seeking injunctive relief to prevent a BVI company (listed on the Palestine Stock Exchange) from redomiciling out of the jurisdiction and into Palestine (led by David Mumford KC). Both proceedings concern claims of fraud and conspiracy between warring family members in relation to circa $100 million in assets.

He also recently successfully represented the directors of a company in liquidation in challenging a decision of BVI appointed liquidators, to facilitate an ongoing shareholder dispute in Singapore.

Alexander’s experience includes:

• Claims challenging reviewable or antecedent transactions
• Applications challenging the decisions of office-holders
• Applications seeking an exemption to the general restriction on the re-use of company names on behalf of directors under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986
• Official Receiver applications for bankruptcy restrictions orders under shc.4A of the Insolvency Act 1986
• Advising and acting in winding up and bankruptcy petitions
• Applications to set aside statutory demands;
• Applications restraining the presentation of winding up petitions
• Applications to challenge both the remuneration of office-holders and extent of liquidation expenses