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”).
Following the judgments in recent years on attribution to a company of its directors' knowledge in Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir [2015] UKSC 23 and UBS AG (London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, the UK Supreme Court has once more returned to this issue in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (a Company Incorporated in The Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, in a case where a bank (Daiwa) was held liable for breaching its Quincecare duty of care to its customer,
A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.
Background
A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.
Background
English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.