In the recent decision Sian Participation v Halimeda (Sian), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council) held on a BVI appeal that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed merely because the underlying debt is subject to a generally-worded arbitration agreement.

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.

Identify all relevant jurisdictions

On November 22, Judge Stuart Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a series of claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) responsible for liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), which sought to claw back and recover over $4 billion in transfers made by certain nonU.S. hedge funds to their non-U.S. investors.

Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code bars state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims asserted by creditors seeking to augment recoveries from a bankruptcy estate

Earlier today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Transfer Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor of Section 546(e) (the Safe Harbor) prohibits clawback claims brought by creditors under state fraudulent transfer laws to the same extent that it prohibits such claims when brought by a debtor.