A decade after Hanjin Shipping's collapse sent shockwaves through global supply chains, the Korean carrier is back in the headlines — this time at the centre of a debate over how South Korea decides whether troubled companies should be rescued or liquidated.

The Seoul Rehabilitation Court is weighing a reduction of its reliance on court-appointed examiners, whose valuations can effectively decide whether companies entering rehabilitation live or die. Under the current system, examiners calculate both liquidation value and going-concern value. When liquidation is judged to be worth more, the prospects of standalone rehabilitation narrow considerably. The court is now examining whether creditors and debtors should instead be given greater opportunity to negotiate restructuring, new investment or other rescue measures before that valuation becomes decisive.

Hanjin has become one of the shipping industry's great cautionary tales — voted by Splash readers as one of the most significant shipping stories of the 2010s.

On August 31, 2016, Splash reported that the Korean carrier had become the highest-profile casualty of the container downturn after creditors withdrew support, with Seoul seemingly favouring rival HMM over Hanjin for survival. At the time, Hanjin was the world's seventh-largest liner, operating 98 ships totalling around 610,000 teu alongside 44 bulkers and tankers. Sixty-one of its ships were chartered in.

The collapse was immediate and chaotic. Ships were arrested or refused entry to ports, cargo was stranded around the world, and lawyers scrambled to protect or seize assets. Within little more than two weeks, Hanjin had sought court protection in 43 countries.

The examiner subsequently determined that Hanjin's liquidation value exceeded its value as a going concern. Rehabilitation was terminated and the company was declared bankrupt in early 2017. The case remains a reference point because it shows how a single valuation can shape the outcome of a major restructuring, especially when market conditions are severely depressed and asset values are under pressure.

What happened next continues to trouble Korea's insolvency community. Within a few years, container shipping entered the greatest boom in its history, as pandemic disruption, capacity shortages and port congestion sent freight rates and liner profits to unprecedented levels. The obvious question — whether any valuation conducted amid the brutal container markets of 2016 could reasonably have anticipated what followed — is helping drive the latest rethink.

Hanjin's demise is also feeding a broader effort in South Korea to ensure that hard-won shipping lessons are not forgotten. Earlier this month, the Korea Maritime Institute (KMI) launched a Korean Shipping History Task Force to systematically document the crises endured by the country's maritime industry and how government and companies responded. More than 30 shipping, academic and government representatives are involved.

Rather than simply compiling a chronology, KMI plans to connect major events with freight markets and policy responses, digitising historical documents, data and first-hand accounts to establish what worked and what failed. The aim is to turn shipping history into a practical resource that policymakers can draw on when the next crisis arrives.