Fulltext Search

Key points

  • Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

  • There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

  • The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

  • Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

  • Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

  • Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key Points

  • Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
  • Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge

The Facts

On June 6, 2017, Australian-based mining equipment supplier Emeco Holdings emerged from chapter 15 proceedings in the Southern District of New York following an Australian court’s sanctioning of the company’s scheme of arrangement.

The scheme of arrangement was a component of an innovative, comprehensive restructuring that provided for a three-way merger of three large Australian mining service companies and a restructuring of A$680 million of debt through a debt-for-equity swap, rights offering, and full refinancing.

Key Points 

  • Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
  • NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
  • The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met

The Facts

Key Points 

  • Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
  • No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
  • Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation

The Facts

In December 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.