In Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Limited), Case No. 11-4376, 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

In the current economic climate, there has been increased interest from clients and their advisers in using offshore companies in cross-border restructurings. The use of offshore companies in restructurings is often driven by tax and structuring advice, where there is a desire to continue the group operating as a going concern and to achieve a favourable outcome for creditors (usually outside of formal insolvency proceedings).

Such companies can offer a number of advantages when used as part of a restructuring plan, including:

Key Issues

The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues:

There has been a considerable amount of interest from clients recently on putting Jersey companies holding UK real property and other assets into English administration. Where a Jersey company and its creditors intend to rescue the company as a going concern, or English administration would achieve a better realisation for creditors than a désastre or a winding up, it may be advantageous to commence English administration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.