The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).

Background

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA“) has clarified in a recent judgment the application of section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (“CWUMPO“) and when the court will grant a validation order.

Initial arrangements have been put in place for mutual recognition and assistance to be provided by courts in Mainland China and Hong Kong in respect of corporate insolvency proceedings. This is a significant and long awaited development which could substantially enhance the ability for cross border insolvencies and restructurings to be administered and implemented across the two jurisdictions.

On 14 May 2021, the Vice-President of the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC and the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice signed a brief Record of Meeting, setting out a consensus on the mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the Mainland China and Hong Kong.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background

Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background

In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

A recent pair of decisions of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court”) has immense potential significance for debtor companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (“HKEx”) and their Hong Kong creditors.

Facts

Re Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622 and Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 651 both involved a familiar factual scenario: