Our two-part article on non-con and true sale issues in insurance contexts continues with a deeper dive into the considerations that distinguish these issues from similar remoteness principles in a Bankruptcy Code context. In Part One, we explained some of the basics of state insurance law that bear on these issues and how these can give rise to different approaches in opinion-giving; in this Part Two, we identify some practical obstacles that arise in these kinds of contexts and opinions.

A Pennsylvania Hypothetical

This two-part article discusses the key concerns, from a non-consolidation and true sale perspective, that arise when an insurance company, as opposed to a bankruptcy-eligible entity, is a sponsor/seller in a securitization or similar structured finance transaction. This Part One introduces the main contrasts between non-con and true sale analysis in a traditional bankruptcy context and such analysis in an insurance-law scenario.

Pearson v. Primeo Fund (Cayman Islands) [2017] UKPC 19

The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

The appellant in this case was the Liquidator of Herald Fund SPC ("Herald"). Herald is a Cayman Islands registered hedge fund that invested heavily into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the historic Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff that collapsed spectacularly in 2008.

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the "Recast Insolvency Regulation") has come into force for any insolvency proceedings commenced on or after 27 June 2017. In line with EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 (the "Original Insolvency Regulation"), the Recast Insolvency Regulation focusses on cross border recognition of Insolvency proceedings and, as a Regulation, it applies without the need for specific implementing legislation in each state.

Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

This case involved an application for security for costs against Mr Nogotkov who is, or claims to be, the Liquidator appointed by a Russian court of Dalnyaya Step LLC ("DSL").

Marex Financial Limited v. Carlos Sevilleja Garcia [2017] EWHC 918 (Comm)

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Karhoo, a US incorporated company able to benefit from the Chapter 15 US bankruptcy code provision for foreign insolvency proceedings following UK Administration.