Walkers acted as Cayman Islands counsel to Oriente Group Limited (the "Company”) in respect of its successful petition for the appointment of Mr Kenneth Fung of FTI Consulting (Hong Kong) Limited, Mr Andrew Morrison and Mr David Griffin of FTI Consulting (Cayman) Ltd as joint restructuring officers (the "Joint Restructuring Officers") pursuant to Section 91B of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (as amended), being the first petition under the new restructuring officer regime, which came into force on 31 August 2022.
The much-anticipated and welcome reforms to the Cayman Islands restructuring and insolvency legislation will come into force on 31 August 2022.
“the new restructuring officer regime and the other amendments to the Companies Act … address certain of the challenging issues previously experienced by practitioners with the restructuring provisional liquidation regime”
Introduction
The Cayman Islands continues to be at the forefront of developments in restructuring and insolvency law in the offshore world and one of the premier jurisdictions of choice to facilitate complex and high-value cross-border restructurings.
Following a recent hearing, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Grand Court") has handed down a notable judgment (the "Judgment") approving the remuneration of the Principal Liquidators of Herald Fund SPC (In Official Liquidation) ("Herald")1 incurred during a six-month period, the entire amount of which had been opposed by Herald's Liquidation Committee.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.