In Short
The Situation: Insolvency officeholders increasingly find their investigations into a company's affairs frustrated by the comingling of records on a "group" server. Claims to privilege by other group entities (or even third parties) are then advanced as an obstacle to delivering company records to the officeholder, leading to expensive and logistically complex inspection and review processes that can be a burden on insolvent estates.
Introduction
Where a British Virgin Islands company is struck off the register, its directors and members cannot carry on the company's affairs, commence or defend legal proceedings in the name of the company, or deal with the assets of the company.
はじめに
最近、イギリス（United Kingdom、以下同じ）最高裁判所のある判決では、破産した会社または破産に近い会社の取締役が債権者の利益を考慮に入れる義務が明確になりました。BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25はイギリスの会社法に関連していますが、英連邦全体、特にオフショア法域での破産における取締役義務についての解釈などに、広範囲にわたる影響を及ぼします。
Sequana
簡介
在最近英国最高法院的一项判决中，资不抵债或接近资不抵债的公司的董事有责任考虑债权人的利益。虽然 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 涉及英国公司法，但它将对理解英联邦地区清盘情况下的董事职责产生深远影响，尤其是在离岸司法管辖区。
Sequana
普通法和 2006 年《公司法》均规定公司董事有义务以诚信行事，以促进公司的成功。传统观点认为，公司利益等同于公司股东的利益。近几十年来，法律开始承认，当公司濒临破产或资不抵债时，公司债权人的利益可能会受到公司管理层的影响。因此，法律开始要求董事在破产情况下履行对公司的信托义务时考虑债权人的利益。这条被称为 West Mercia 规则（源自 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liq) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250）的规则从未在案例中得到一致解释，而法院使用的语言经常混淆规则的性质及其产生的确切情况。
Introduction
In a recent decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court clarified the duty of directors of insolvent or near insolvent companies to consider the interests of creditors. While BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 relates to company law in the United Kingdom, it will have far reaching implications on the understanding of directors' duties relating to insolvency across the commonwealth and, in particular, offshore jurisdictions.
Sequana
Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).
As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)1 proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective
OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY
Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.
The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.
Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.