The Federal Government has announced its largest insolvency reform package in over 30 years, which includes a simplified formal debt restructuring process for eligible small businesses.

The centerpiece of the reforms is the adoption of a US-style "debtor in possession" restructuring model, which closely mirrors the recently enacted small business restructuring provisions of subchapter V of the US Bankruptcy Code.

This article was published in a slightly different form in the November 2016 issue of Futures & Derivatives Law by The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products.

Introduction

On August 2, 2010, Maru E. Johansen, in her capacity as the foreign representative (the “Foreign Representative”)1 in respect of Mexican insolvency proceedings regarding Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexicana”), filed a petition for recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), commencing a case under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.2 Mexicana and its affiliates operate Mexicana Airlines, Mexico’s largest airline.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing an important issue with respect to the preservation of a debtor's causes of action in a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized debtor lacked standing to pursue certain common-law claims that were based on the pre-confirmation management of the bankruptcy estate's assets.

Can a United States bankruptcy court deny recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding even if no one opposes such recognition? In a recent decision, Judge Burton Lifland, a highly respected bankruptcy judge and one of the authors of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, says yes.

Liquidators of Bear Stearns Funds Seek Relief under Chapter 15

Recently, in In re Northwest Airlines Corp.,1 Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper issued an opinion requiring a group of hedge funds that had formed an ad hoc committee of equity security holders (the “Ad Hoc Equity Committee”) to disclose “the amounts of claims or interests owned by the members of the committee, the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof” in order to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”).

Background

The landmark decision in Design Studio¹ introduces the US rescue financing concept of "roll-ups" to Singapore. This is the first case to consider the appropriateness of the roll-up feature in Singapore and is a pragmatic decision that is guided by a careful balance between the protection of creditors' interests and the rehabilitation of the debtor. This case also clarifies that super priority is not solely for new money financings.

The Design Studio case and the super priority regime

After months of public consultations and revision, the Singapore parliament passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill (the "Bill") on 10 March 2017 amending the Singapore Companies Act (the "Companies Act"). The Bill contains, among others, significant and novel changes to Singapore's insolvency laws. This is no doubt a giant step towards positioning Singapore as Asia Pacific's Debt Restructuring Hub with cross-border restructuring capabilities.

Introduction - The Bill

On June 2, 2010, the Third Circuit overruled longstanding precedent interpreting the definition of a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code. In JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), No. 09-1563, slip op., (3d Cir. June 2, 2010) an en banc panel rejected the state law accrual theory of claims recognition established in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (Matter of M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), in favor of the more widely followed conduct test theory.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.