The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A pair of bankruptcy court rulings handed down in 2017 widened a rift among the courts on this issue.

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

With one exception, the Top 10 List of "public company" (defined as a company with publicly traded stock or debt) bankruptcies of 2016 consisted entirely of energy companies—solar, coal, and oil and gas producers—reflecting, as in 2015, the dire straits of those sectors caused by weakened worldwide demand and, until their December turnaround, plummeting oil prices. The exception came from the airline industry. Each company gracing the Top 10 List for 2016 entered bankruptcy with assets valued at more than $3 billion.

Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

The watchword for 2016 in much of the world was "upheaval." Two unanticipated events dominated the political, business, and financial headlines of 2016, at least in Europe and the Americas: the Brexit referendum result and the election of Donald J .Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The refugee crisis, the commodities meltdown, Brazil’s economic collapse, China’s growing pains, Russian belligerency and alleged cyber-meddling in the U.S. election, the war on terrorism, and the beginning of the end of the bloody Syrian civil war seemed to pale by comparison.

This is an extract from Financier Worldwide's August online publication entitled "Pension challenges in bankruptcy and restructuring processes."

REFLECTING ON THE LAST FEW YEARS, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE OVERALL PENSION CHALLENGES ARISING FOR COMPANIES FACING BANKRUPTCY / INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING PROCESS? WHAT MAJOR TRENDS HAVE DEFINED THIS SPACE?

BACKGROUND

Halcrow Group Limited (HGL) and Halcrow Water Services Limited (together Halcrow), two subsidiaries of Halcrow Holdings Limited (HHL), were the sponsoring employers with legal responsibility for funding the Halcrow Pension Scheme (HPS).

The world’s second-largest economy (China) stumbled; Japan receded; the U.K. showed signs of life; the war-torn Middle East reeled; oil revenue-dependent Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela took body blows; and the European Union exhaled after narrowly avoiding Grexit (and possibly Brexit), only to confront a refugee crisis of alarming (and expensive) proportions, as well as a demonstrated terrorist threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

A Good Year for the U.S.

A “structured dismissal” of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize costs and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy and appellate courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy.

Around 33,000 UK-based pensioners of the Nortel group  look set to receive a greater share of the group’s $7bn worldwide assets, following a joint allocation hearing in the US and Canadian courts. This should mitigate earlier difficulties encountered in trying to use the Pensions Regulator’s anti- avoidance powers to recover monies from non-UK companies.

The decision may also have wider implications for unsecured lenders to a company which is part of a multi-jurisdictional group headquartered in the US or Canada.

WHAT WAS THE BACKGROUND TO THIS?