The Royal Court has recently handed down the final decision in the matter of Eagle Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation).[1] In this decision, the Royal Court of Guernsey provided guidance and assistance to the joint liquidators regarding a distribution of surplus funds.
To proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used. These start with the arrest of a debtor's goods and enable all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
In order to proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used which start with the arrest of a debtor's goods but which allow all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
Arrêts
Once judgment is obtained against a debtor, the 'arresting creditor', will either:
Saisie (meaning "to seize") is a court driven, Guernsey customary law process, governed by the Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order, 1952. It is a three stage post judgment process which enables a creditor to enforce their rights against the debtor's realty in Guernsey.
Q4 2020 and Q1 2021 saw some significant developments in offshore restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery, with the passage of new legislation and the handing down of judgments providing welcome clarification on laws relevant to practitioners in this area.
Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).
A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.), has re-examined application of the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, to the transferees of “financial institutions” in so-called “conduit transactions,” following the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 883 (2018).
Introduction
In re Katy Indus., Inc., 590 B.R. 628 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018) presented an interesting question: If a stalking horse bidder’s successful bid to purchase a company in chapter 11 was partially predicated upon a credit bid, and a portion of that credit bid was challenged after the sale closed, what would be the result for the bidder’s overall successful bid if that portion of the credit bid was eliminated?
Background