On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Consolidated and amended insolvency and restructuring rules and regulations come into force in the Cayman Islands on 1 February 2018 (the "Amended Rules").

The Amended Rules do not represent a comprehensive overhaul of the rules and regulations but they do make a number of significant changes to the procedural aspects of Cayman Islands domestic and cross-border insolvency and restructuring legislation. These changes largely reflect and codify existing practice.

Companies Winding Up Rules

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

From 26 June 2017 an enhanced EU regime governing the commencement, recognition and enforcement of insolvency and restructuring proceedings throughout the EU will come into effect. The principal aim of the new regime is to encourage a corporate rescue culture within the EU.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

In CHC Group Ltd ("CHC") the Cayman Islands Grand Court has determined that, in certain circumstances, directors of a company can commence Cayman Islands restructuring provisional liquidation proceedings ("RPL Proceedings") without the need for a shareholders' resolution or authorisation in the company's articles of association. This decision allows greater access by companies to the Cayman Islands restructuring regime by confirming a practical solution to the so-called Emmadart issue.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

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.