Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently enjoined a Hong Kong-based investor from exercising its shareholder purchase rights in an Asian joint venture.[1] The Bankruptcy Court’s order also prevents the investor from proceeding with litigation to enforce its rights in a Hong Kong court. Neither of the joint venture partners, or the joint venture itself, are debtors in a domestic or foreign insolvency proceeding. Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that injunctive relief was warranted because the investor’s actions were disrupting a sale process for the U.S.

In a closely watched battle between FirstEnergy Solutions (“FirstEnergy”) and the Ohio Valley Energy Corporation (“OVEC”) that could have significant implications for the U.S. power sector, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio asserted its primacy over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in deciding whether to allow FirstEnergy to repudiate certain FERC-regulated power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision that will increase the exposure of debt and equity investors that receive payments from all kinds of highly leveraged transactions, including leveraged buy-outs and dividend recapitalizations. The unanimous opinion in Merit Management Group, LP v.

In today’s chapter 11 practice, third party releases are ubiquitous. A staple of the largest and most complex cases for years, plan provisions releasing and enjoining claims against non-debtors, particularly officers and directors, are now common place in most business reorganizations. While case law permits a bankruptcy court to enjoin claims against non-debtors in limited, fact-specific circumstances, plan proponents frequently achieve far broader releases by creditor consent. In re SunEdison, Inc.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently granted in part and denied in part dismissal in favor of the defendant car manufacturer in a fraudulent transfer adversary proceeding brought by the Chapter 11 trustee in Emerald Capital Advisors Corp. ex rel. FAH Liquidating Trust v.

In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236