In This Issue:

U.S. Supreme Court: Creditors May Immediately Appeal Denials of Automatic-Stay Relief

In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

In In re O’Reilly, 598 B.R. 784 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2019), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the petition of a foreign bankruptcy trustee for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s Bahamian bankruptcy case. Although the Bahamian bankruptcy was otherwise eligible for chapter 15 recognition, the U.S.

The NSW Supreme Court has reaffirmed the criteria for a Court to inquire into a liquidator’s conduct. It is necessary to show that there is at least a ‘well-based suspicion’ indicating a need for further investigation. ‘Mere wondering’ is not enough.

In exercising its discretion, a Court will also consider the nature and gravity of the allegations against the liquidator, delays in seeking an inquiry, the utility of an inquiry and the existence of alternative remedies.

Background

For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.

In In re Avanti Commc'ns Grp. PLC, 582 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code enforcing a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a court in England that included nonconsensual third-party releases. Judge Glenn determined that such releases should be recognized and enforced consistent with principles of "comity" and cooperation with foreign courts inherent under chapter 15.

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.