Rian Matthews and Kate Ballantine-Dykes from Baker McKenzie have published an article entitled “Common law to the rescue: bridging gaps in international and domestic restructuring and insolvency regimes” in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency.

The giants of Asia – Indonesia, China, and India – raise many opportunities and challenges for insolvency practitioners. Baker McKenzie’s own Andi Kadir spoke this morning about some of the solutions to those problems, showcasing his significant experience with insolvency reforms and opportunities in Indonesia.

Andi highlighted the benefits of the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang regime as a restructuring tool in Indonesia. A PKPU is a debtor in possession mechanism, somewhat like a blend of a US Chapter 11 administration with aspects of the insolvency laws of the Netherlands.

Billed as INSOL’s “most popular session”, the plenary session Hot Topics – Avoid Being Burnt! provided a brief overview of developments in the insolvency landscape. The session panel was chaired by Jay A. Carfagnini (Goodmans LLP) with panelists the Honourable Justice Paul Heath of the High Court of New Zealand, Gabriel Moss QC, Gaurav Malhorta (Ernst & Young), and Jason Karas (Lipman Karas).

The panel discussed the following points:

There has been great discussion over the course of INSOL on the various restructuring and insolvency reforms being considered or implemented globally. In the break out session ‘The good, the bad and the ugly: national and regional law reforms’, panellists drilled down into the detail of some of these reforms. The panel considered reforms in the EU (Prof. Christoph Paulus, Hamboldt-Universitat zu Berlin), the UK (Mark Craggs, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP), Singapore (Sushil Nair, Drew & Napier LLC), and the US (Donald S.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

It has become increasingly common for companies needing to restructure to open restructuring / insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction outside of where their centre of corporate control is located or assets are concentrated. Forum shopping in a restructuring context is becoming more common place, however it also remains highly controversial. The panelists at the INSOL breakout session, A Hitchhikers Guide of Forum Shopping, considered what makes a good forum for restructuring / insolvency, and whether forum shopping is desirable or undesirable.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The Singapore Ministry of Law has published for public consultation amendments to the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 50). The amendments, if enacted, have the potential to radically overhaul the existing insolvency and restructuring regime in Singapore. The clear aim of the amendments is to transform Singapore into a hub for cross-border and transnational insolvencies and restructurings.

This update briefly summarises the key amendments which have been proposed and the background to those reforms.

Key Points

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]