The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
Owners of small business entities are frequently required to guaranty the debts of such entities. Those business entities might later file for Chapter 11, and may be able to achieve confirmation of a plan to restructure their indebtedness. The question then presented is whether this confirmation event affects the separate guaranty obligations of the owners? The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this issue in In re: Larry
Most loan contracts include provisions allowing the collection of attorneys’ fees in the event the borrower defaults. These attorney fee provisions are routinely enforced in collection suits brought in state courts.
Insiders who loot their corporate entities often dispose of the cash proceeds in transactions with third parties. A recent Seventh Circuit opinion, In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 14-2174 (7th Cir. October 13, 2015) (the “EAR Opinion”)addresses a common risk faced by a third party who receives cash from the defrauding insider.
Parties continue to skirmish over the sufficiency of the “cram-down” interest rate required to confirm a Chapter 11 plan over a secured lender’s objection. Currently bankruptcy courts will give some weight to the “prime plus” formula set forth in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004)(plurality opinion).
On August 4, 2015, we posted: “Equitable Mootness In The Third Circuit: Dead Or Alive?”, which analyzed the Third Circuit’s opinion in In re One2One Communications. The post predicted that Judge Krause’s concurrence would likely result in further opinions on equitable mootness. Less than a month later we have such an opinion. InAurelius v. Tribune, 14-3332 (3d Cir.