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.

Key Points

• A trust can be created and enforceable in respect of assets sited in a jurisdiction that does not recognise the concept of a trust
• In circumstances where the owner of a beneficial right goes into liquidation, the transfer of legal rights held by a third party to a bonafide purchaser for value is not a disposition within the meaning of s127.

The Facts

Key Points

• Reaffirms the importance of considering whether an applicant’s position would be improved by the making a vesting order

• Useful guidance on the extent of the court’s powers when granting a vesting order.

The Facts

Summary

A bankrupt was found to be in contempt of court following years of failing to comply with the terms of multiple court orders compelling him to disclose information about his financial affairs with a view to entering into an IPOA.

The Facts

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.

Summary

The case provides guidance for liquidators as to the appropriate exercise to conduct when deciding whether the threshold of 25% in value of creditor claims has been reached in support of a request for a creditors’ meeting under s 171.

Key point

• A liquidator is not required to apply a ‘strict proof’ test to a creditor’s claim at the requisition stage of a creditors meeting.

The facts

In November 2014, the company entered into a creditor’s voluntary liquidation.

With the aim of improving transparency around ownership and control of companies, all UK unquoted and limited liability partnerships are required to maintain new registers of People with Significant Control (PSC). The details should be recorded in the company’s own PSC register and are to be filed at Companies House.

Anyone who satisfies at least one of the following conditions:

The Facts

In December 2015, Hart J heard (and refused) an application by Mr Golstein for revocation of a decision of 31 May 2012 passing a proposal by Mr Bishop to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). Mr Golstein, who was claiming a sum of £122,000 from Mr Bishop, appealed the decision on the basis that his claim was not correctly admitted for voting purposes and that there was material non-disclosure by Mr Bishop which led to the passing of the IVA.

The Decision