In the October 2021 edition of IBA Insolvency and Restructuring International, Peter Hayden and Jonathan Moffatt explain recent decisions in the UK and the Cayman Islands on the narrowing of the rule in Prudential and its implications for shareholders and creditors considering litigation.
Introduction
The Cayman Islands' legislature has recently gazetted the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (the Amendment Bill), proposing the introduction of a new corporate restructuring process and the concept of a dedicated 'restructuring officer' into the Cayman Islands Companies Act (2021 Revision). Under the Amendment Bill, the filing of a petition for the appointment of a restructuring officer would trigger an automatic global moratorium on claims against the company, giving it the opportunity to seek to implement a restructuring.
1. Related Fund Entity filings for private funds]
On 1 September 2021, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) issued a Notice advising industry that a new Related Fund Entity (RFE) form for private funds was available for use via CIMA's Regulatory Enhanced Electronic Forms Submission (REEFS) portal.
A recent decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has confirmed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Grand Court made pursuant to section 152(1) of the Companies Act (2021) Revision to dissolve a Company following its official liquidation.
Background
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment entered in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) in a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim brought by Henry Losch (“Losch”) finding not only that Losch had standing to bring the claims but also that Experian’s investigation of Losch’s credit reporting dispute was not “reasonable as a matter of law.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d.b.a. Mr. Cooper, -- F. 3d. --, 2021 WL 1653016, *1 (11th Cir. April 28, 2021).
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a FCRA claim finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant did not have a “permissible purpose” to access the plaintiff’s credit report for collection of a mortgage debt that the plaintiff alleged was previously discharged in bankruptcy. In Andrea Billups v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, No. 19 C 7873, 2021 WL 1648114 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that the Defendant mortgage server violated 15 U.S.C.
The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.
Introduction
The breadth and scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and the potential cost a company may face for violating the stay made national news last week in a dust-up between two telecom providers, when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court overseeing Windstream’s bankruptcy case ordered Charter Communications to pay Windstream more than $19 million in damages. The automatic stay is triggered immediately when a bankruptcy petition is filed.
The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.
A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.1 The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Introduction