Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Walkers acted as Cayman Islands counsel to Oriente Group Limited (the "Company”) in respect of its successful petition for the appointment of Mr Kenneth Fung of FTI Consulting (Hong Kong) Limited, Mr Andrew Morrison and Mr David Griffin of FTI Consulting (Cayman) Ltd as joint restructuring officers (the "Joint Restructuring Officers") pursuant to Section 91B of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (as amended), being the first petition under the new restructuring officer regime, which came into force on 31 August 2022.

The much-anticipated and welcome reforms to the Cayman Islands restructuring and insolvency legislation will come into force on 31 August 2022.

“the new restructuring officer regime and the other amendments to the Companies Act … address certain of the challenging issues previously experienced by practitioners with the restructuring provisional liquidation regime”

Introduction

The Cayman Islands continues to be at the forefront of developments in restructuring and insolvency law in the offshore world and one of the premier jurisdictions of choice to facilitate complex and high-value cross-border restructurings.  

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

Following a recent hearing, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Grand Court") has handed down a notable judgment (the "Judgment") approving the remuneration of the Principal Liquidators of Herald Fund SPC (In Official Liquidation) ("Herald")1 incurred during a six-month period, the entire amount of which had been opposed by Herald's Liquidation Committee.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background