Key points
- Without notice applications for recognition orders carry the obligation of full and frank disclosure to the English court in relation to the effect such orders may have on third parties.
- Failure to provide full and frank disclosure may have cost consequences.
The facts
Key Point
The court adjourned a bankruptcy hearing on the basis that a Spanish court sanctioned liquidation plan for a group of companies in which the debtor had an interest might release value for creditors.
The Facts
On January 4, 2016, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) deviated from SDNY precedent and held that, despite the absence of clear Congressional intent, the avoidance powers provided for under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can be applied extraterritorially. As a result, a fraudulent transfer of property of a debtor’s estate that occurs outside of the United States can be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On December 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate must be subordinated to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims of the same type as the underlying securities in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Key Points
- Receivers only owe a duty of care to those parties who hold an interest in the equity of redemption.
- Upon the making of a bankruptcy order, the bankrupt ceases to participate in any such interest and the equity of redemption vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.
The Facts
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 Point
Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.
The Facts
This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.
The Decision
Key Point
Judgement provides detailed guidance on administrators making distributions in relation to EU incorporated companies.
The Facts
In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.1 The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its
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”).