Judicial Insolvency Network discusses guidelines for cross-border insolvency matters

For the first time, insolvency judges from 10 jurisdictions met in Singapore for a Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) conference to discuss cooperation in cross-border insolvency matters. The conference concluded today with the preparation of draft guidelines for consideration in the judges’ respective jurisdictions. The judges were from Australia (Federal Court and New South Wales), the British Virgin Islands, Canada (Ontario), the Cayman Islands, England & Wales, Hong Kong SAR (as an observer), Singapore and the United States of America (Delaware and Southern District of New York).

2. The draft guidelines address key aspects of communication and cooperation among courts, insolvency representatives, and other parties involved in cross-border insolvency proceedings. The draft guidelines are intended to facilitate communication and cooperation, including providing for joint hearings. This would benefit relevant stakeholders by reducing legal costs and preserving the value of financially distressed businesses.

3. The conference was very productive and generated important ideas and suggestions for dealing with challenges facing multi-jurisdictional insolvency.

4. JIN provides a platform for sustained and continuous engagement among judges from various insolvency courts. Through JIN, judges can come together to share experiences, exchange ideas, identify areas for judicial cooperation and develop best practices.

5. With globalisation and the shift in how corporations conduct their businesses and organise themselves, it is hoped that more jurisdictions will participate in JIN to develop best practices in the adjudication of cross-border insolvencies. While judges from Bermuda, South Korea and Japan were not present at the conference, their judiciaries have requested to be kept abreast on the discussions and outcome of the conference.

6. It is envisaged that JIN conferences will take place every two years in various jurisdictions.

SUPREME COURT

6 OCTOBER 2016