The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.
The full strength of the economic headwinds facing the UK economy is not yet clear, but a helpful recent report by insolvency and restructuring adviser Begbies Traynor provided some useful numbers around the attitudes of businesses.
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code's enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
Preferences
“Under the long-standing ‘solvent-debtor exception,’ plaintiffs [unsecured trade creditors] possess an equitable right to receive post-petition interest at the contractual or default state law rate, subject to any other equitable considerations, before [the debtor] collects surplus value from the bankruptcy estate,” held the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2022. In re PG&E Corporation, 2022 WL 3712498, *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (2-1).
The defendant "was a `mere conduit' of [a] fraudulent transfer and cannot be liable to the bankruptcy estate for funds she never knew about," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 5, 2022. In re BICOM N.Y., LLC, 2022 WL 1419997 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022). Affirming the lower courts' granting of summary judgement to the defendant transferee, the court refused to "equate ...
The Third Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court's approved retention of the debtor's counsel ("S") when that "law firm dropped an existing client to avoid conflicts that would prevent it from taking on a more lucrative client [i.e., the debtor]." In re Boy Scouts of America, 2022 WL 1634643, *7 (3d Cir. May 24, 2022) (BSA). According to the court, there were "not enough facts to put [the so-called "hot potato" doctrine] into play" and disqualify S under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id.
Overview
In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Court”) concerning a supervision order in respect of a Cayman company in voluntary liquidation, Kawaley J considered the settled principles in a solvent Cayman Islands liquidation involving a dispute as to the identity of the official liquidators to be appointed.
The Proceeding
Executive Summary
Where multiple Cayman Islands entities in the same corporate structure become subject to insolvency proceedings (e.g. Cayman Islands master/ feeder fund structures), the Cayman Islands Courts will typically seek to appoint the same liquidators at each level where such entities share similarities in circumstances. Doing so typically aligns with the Overriding Objective of the Court to deal with matters economically and efficiently, and in the context of a liquidation, helps protect the interests of stakeholders in the liquidation.
When a Cayman Islands company is in official liquidation, no proceedings or claims can be commenced against the company without the Cayman Court's permission. This requirement serves as a safeguard for the liquidation estate of the company in liquidation from being unnecessarily depleted at the expense of stakeholders of the liquidation.
On 26 April 2022, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a decision by the joint official liquidators (“JOLs”) of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the “Company”) to return (or procure the return of) certain payments held by or on behalf of the Company referable to one of its segregated portfolios, Premier Assurance Segregated Portfolio (“PASP”), to the respective payors on the basis that such sums were paid by mistake.