The Cayman Islands Government has published the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (Bill) which will introduce welcome amendments to the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (Act), to facilitate the efficient restructuring of distressed companies for the benefit of their stakeholders.
はじめに
ケイマン諸島と香港の裁判所は、この数ヶ月、ケイマン諸島の会社を再編することを目的とするクロスボーダーの申立てについて、関連する法域における裁判所がどのようにこれを処理するのか実用的な方向性を示しました。これは、国際礼譲および修正された普遍主義の原則に沿ったものです。
裁判所のスタート地点
手続が一つ以上のコモンローの法域で開始されたが、清算人の任命が未了の場合、裁判所が修正された普遍主義を適用するためのスタート地点は、倒産の主手続の役割を担うのはどの法域がより適当かということを考えることでしょう。最近の香港およびケイマン諸島の両地域の裁判例では、長年の先例に沿いながら、通常この法域とは会社の設立地であることを確認しました。なぜならば投資家やサービス・プロバイダーおよび債権者が通常関係しているからであり、とりわけ、会社の登録された営業所であったり、その取締役会の義務やその定款を規定する法律の地であるからです。
Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).
Background
Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.
In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.
Background
The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).
Background
Introduction
The Grand Court has recently provided helpful clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied when a dispute arises over the identity of the insolvency practitioners proposed to be appointed by a creditor or the company. In Global Fidelity Bank Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)[1] the Court confirmed the 3-stage test for determining independence and that in applying the test, significant weight should be afforded to the views of the creditors.
Background
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).
Background