In appointing restructuring provisional liquidators ("RPLs") to the Cayman Islands incorporated company, CW Group Holdings Limited ("CW"), in the face of opposition from a creditor seeking a remedy that may have led to CW's liquidation, the Cayman Islands court has reinforced its reputation in (i) putting company rescue first and (ii) seeking to ensure that returns to creditors are maximised. A significant step has also been taken in applying a more commercial and pragmatic reality to the question of officeholder independence.
Two United States Bankruptcy Judges for the Southern District of New York recently issued a joint opinion addressing common issues raised by motions to dismiss in two separate adversary proceedings – one pending before Judge Bernstein and the other before Judge Glenn (the “Adversary Proceedings”). The Adversary Proceedings were filed by the debtors in two chapter 11 cases, each involving an Anguillan offshore bank – National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd. and Caribbean Commercial Investment Bank Ltd. (the “Debtor Banks”).
Manley Toys Limited once claimed to be the seventh largest toy company in the world. Due to ongoing litigation and declining sales, it entered into a voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong. On March 22, 2016, the debtor’s appointed liquidators and foreign representatives filed a motion for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion was opposed by ASI Inc., f/k/a Aviva Sports, Inc. (“Aviva”) and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“TRU”).
In a decision that will reassure investors in Cayman Islands investment funds and other vehicles, the Grand Court has shown its willingness to facilitate the investigation of legitimate concerns raised during a voluntary liquidation.1
The decision is the first written ruling on the Court's power to defer the dissolution of a Cayman Islands company in voluntary liquidation under section 151(3) of the Companies Law and also considers the Court's power to bring a voluntary liquidation under the Court's supervision in the context of an investigation into possible wrongdoing.
U.S. Bankruptcy Rule 9019 provides that on a motion brought by a trustee (and thus a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession as well) the court may approve a settlement. The prevailing view is that due to the court’s approval requirement, pre-court approval settlement agreements are enforceable by the debtor but not against the debtor. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently disagreed. It held that the statutory approval requirement is not an opportunity for the debtor to repudiate the settlement.
Directors and officers (D&Os) of troubled companies should be highly sensitive to D&O insurance policies with Prior Act Exclusion. While policies with such exclusion may be cheaper, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit raises the spectre that a court may hold a loss to have more than a coincidental causal connection with the officer’s conduct pre-policy period and make the (cheaper) coverage worthless.
A U.S. House of Representatives Bill would amend the Bankruptcy Code to establish new provisions to address the special issues raised by troubled nonbank financial institutions.
In a 2-1 opinion, the Second Circuit overruled the district court in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., finding no violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in connection with an out-of-court debt restructuring.
Background
Addressing a novel issue in In re: International Oil Trading Company, LLC, 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied in part an involuntary debtor’s motion to compel production of communications between the judgment creditor who had filed the involuntary bankruptcy petition and the petitioner’s litigation funder. The Court found that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection were applicable to certain disclosures made to the litigation funder, a non-lawyer third-party.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.1 Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000. This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.