It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

International guidelines on cross-border insolvency matters have recently been adopted by the BVI courts. The Judicial Insolvency Network guidelines – drafted in 2016 by ten insolvency judges from international jurisdictions, including a BVI Commercial Court Judge – aim to create co-operation and communication between courts on cross-jurisdiction proceedings, and to minimise the time and expense involved in litigation.

The adoption of new international guidelines on cross-border insolvency matters by the BVI courts has been welcomed by Ogier insolvency law specialist Nicholas Brookes.

The Judicial Insolvency Network guidelines – drafted in 2016 by ten insolvency judges from international jurisdictions, including a BVI Commercial Court Judge – aim to create co-operation and communication between courts on cross-jurisdiction proceedings, and to minimise the time and expense involved in litigation.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

Two recent decisions of the UK courts concern UK liquidation and administration of foreign companies

Refusal to Wind-Up Foreign Companies: Re Buccament Bay Limited [2014] EWHC 3130 (Ch)

The High Court of England and Wales may refuse to exercise its discretion to wind up companies incorporated abroad where there would be little likelihood of the petitioners deriving benefit from the winding-up.