Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 MAY 2024

Restructuring Provisional Liquidators May Not Be Dead After All

Appleby
Appleby
Contributor
Appleby

Appleby

Appleby is a leading offshore law firm. The team of legal specialists advise global public and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Appleby

When the restructuring officer regime was introduced, it was assumed by many that joint provisional liquidators would no longer be appointed for restructuring purposes, having been overtaken by the new regime.

GlobalInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

When the restructuring officer regime was introduced, it was assumed by many that joint provisional liquidators would no longer be appointed for restructuring purposes, having been overtaken by the new regime. The recent decision of Re Kingkey Financial International (Holdings) Ltd suggests that this assumption may not be sound. It also raises several interesting points regarding the restructuring officer regime that merit further consideration. This article considers the Kingkey case, and the points arising from it.

INTRODUCTION

The restructuring officer (RO) regime came into force nearly two years ago.1 It was intended to create a fit for purpose framework under which distressed entities (typically companies) could restructure. It was also introduced against the backdrop of growing criticism in other jurisdictions, principally Hong Kong, of the prior approach of appointing joint provisional liquidators (JPLs) to allow a company to stave off enforcement

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from