Stephen John Hunt v Transworld Payment Solutions U.K. Limited (in liquidation) [2020] SC (Bda) 14 Com The Bermuda Supreme Court has clarified the rules for granting common law recognition and assistance to foreign insolvency office holders following the landmark competing Privy Council decisions of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Price Waterhouse Coopers [2014] UKPC 36 and Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (of Navigator Holding PLC and others) [2006] UKPC 26.
Global outlook
Impact on businesses
Managing insolvency risks
Considerations for companies and directors
Consequences for lenders
This briefing looks at the potential impact of the coronavirus COVID-19 on businesses and examines steps that can be taken by stakeholders and directors to recognise, manage and mitigate the risks. In particular, we look at: the potential impact on businesses; managing insolvency risk; considerations for directors; and considerations for lenders.
Global outlook for the coronavirus situation
The recent English judgment of System Building Services Group Limited¹ is an important decision for directors of offshore companies in 'soft touch' provisional liquidation, and highlights the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of the order appointing provisional liquidators for the purposes of ascertaining the scope of directors’ duties that apply during the course of their post-appointment restructuring efforts.
The Supreme Court of Bermuda has confirmed once again its willingness to order Confidentiality Orders in cases that involve the administration of private trusts. In the 2018 case of In the Matter of the E Trust (the “E Trust”), Acting Justice, Shade Subair Williams (subsequently appointed as a Puisne Judge) reaffirmed previous rulings that private trust proceedings can be anonymized and heard privately in Chambers.
The Facts
“[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).
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.
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]
An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.