Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.
A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.
On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.
Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).
In 2016, the insolvency and bankruptcy landscape in India was radically overhauled by the introduction of the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). In addition to consolidating the complex set of existing laws and regulations on insolvency and bankruptcy into a single law, the IBC introduced time bound and creditor driven resolution process for distressed companies overseen by the newly formed National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
On 8 February 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the “Hong Kong Court“) ruled that the common law power to recognise and assist foreign insolvency proceedings extends to voluntary liquidations – this is the first authority on this issue in Hong Kong.
Case: IN THE MATTER of an application for recognition and assistance by the Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Limited (in liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) [2018] HKCFI 277
In a judgment handed down on 9 June 2015, the High Court of Singapore has for the first time approved a litigation funding arrangement for the benefit of a company in liquidation.
Summary
The key points arising from the judgment are:
In a judgment handed down on 6 March 2013, the Hong Kong High Court elaborated on the guiding principles the court will follow when determining whether or not it should exercise its 'exorbitant' jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company 'which prima facie is beyond the limits of territoriality'.
In Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, the UK Supreme Court held that: