On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).

Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

The giants of Asia – Indonesia, China, and India – raise many opportunities and challenges for insolvency practitioners. Baker McKenzie’s own Andi Kadir spoke this morning about some of the solutions to those problems, showcasing his significant experience with insolvency reforms and opportunities in Indonesia.

Andi highlighted the benefits of the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang regime as a restructuring tool in Indonesia. A PKPU is a debtor in possession mechanism, somewhat like a blend of a US Chapter 11 administration with aspects of the insolvency laws of the Netherlands.

Some businesses operate in a naturally risky environment where a major crisis event is a real possible consequence of everyday operations. What do you do when something literally blows up?

In the context of the scenario posed for the first day of the conference, this panel considered some of the obligations of the board and the officers of a near insolvent company in managing financial, regulatory, and environmental risks.

Litigation funding can form a useful part of the arsenal of an insolvency practitioner when attempting to maximise the return to creditors. Yet funders can be met with suspicion by creditors and courts alike, depending on the country in which you pursue your litigation.

This break out session sought to highlight key issues for funders and borrowers, and regional differences in how litigation funding is perceived and applied.

Returns to creditors from litigation against associates of the business are often a lucrative way of getting funds into an administration after a corporate failure. Claims are often made against banks, lawyers and accountants associated with the failure. In some cases, those claims may involve chasing other parties for the proceeds of a fraud. Often these claims provide a greater return than chasing down any remaining assets.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).