Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2019 government registration fees, an appointed liquidator will be required to hold the final general meeting for a company or file the final dissolution notice for an exempted limited partnership on or before 31 January 2019.

As annual BVI Registry fees are payable by 30 November for those BVI companies that were incorporated or registered in the second half of the year, it is time to start planning the liquidation of those entities that have reached the end of their life cycle, to ensure that unnecessary Registry fees are not incurred.

The timing of the commencement of the voluntary liquidation of a Cayman Islands company was often driven primarily by the desire to avoid incurring the following year’s annual government fees. To avoid those fees, the liquidation had to commence by December, with the final meeting being held before the end of January. This timetable resulted in an effective dissolution date into the next calendar year, while still avoiding the government fees for that year.

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”).

As annual invoices are being generated for those BVI companies that are registered in the first half of the year, it is time to start planning the liquidation of those entities that have reached the end of their life cycle, to ensure that unnecessary fees are not incurred.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2018 government registration fees, an appointed voluntary liquidator will be required to file the final notice for a company on or before 31 May 2018. In order to meet this deadline, we recommend that the voluntary liquidation commence prior to 30 April 2018.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2018 government registration fees, an appointed liquidator will be required to hold the final general meeting for a company or file the final dissolution notice for an exempted limited partnership on or before 31 January 2018.

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.