Key Points
- An administrator may be able appeal an order restoring a company following dissolution
- The court has jurisdiction to backdate a winding up order made following restoration to the date of dissolution
- The court must exercise its discretion to do so with extreme caution
The Facts
Client Connection Limited (“Company”) was placed into administration and Ms Sharma (“A”) was appointed as administrator. Following a pre-pack sale of the business of the Company, A moved the Company to dissolution.
On October 28, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision that significantly expands the jurisdictional bases that foreign issuers can rely upon to obtain relief in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Key Points
- Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
- Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation
The Facts
Key points
- Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
- Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
- Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated
The facts
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:
Key Point
The mere fact that the law of the country in which an asset is situated does not recognise the trust concept does not necessarily invalidate the trust at least as far as English Courts are concerned.
The Facts
Key Points
- The principle of modified universalism (being the principle underlying the common law power to assist foreign insolvency proceedings) continues to exist
- There is a common law power to order production of information to assist foreign insolvency proceedings
- Common law assistance does not enable office holders to do something they would not be able to do under the insolvency laws by which they are appointed
The Facts