Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.

When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:

In the recent case of Greece v Stroumpoulis on 25 February 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that EU protections under the Insolvency Directive apply to EU residents working in the EU, regardless of whether their employer is an EU company. The ECJ reached this decision based on the social objective of the Insolvency Directive, irrespective of the maritime waters on which the vessel sailed.

On 28 April 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (Commencement) Order 2016 was made. It provides for the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the New Act) to come into force on 1 August 2016.

Continuing low oil and natural gas commodity prices have led to bargain prices at the pump, but also high tension in many boardrooms. This strain on the industry has resulted in many exploration and production, or “E&P,” companies seeking relief from high debt and reduced revenue in bankruptcy. In recent cases, those E&P companies have sought to reject their midstream gathering agreements, which they deem onerous and unprofitable.

A party to arbitration or court proceedings in Australia can obtain a freezing order in advance of obtaining a domestic court judgment or arbitration award, in prescribed circumstances. In PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015]¹ the High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian courts have the same power to grant freezing orders prior to a judgment or award being obtained in respect of proceedings commenced outside of Australia, provided that judgment or award would be enforceable in Australia.

This is the sixth in a series of alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies (the “Commission”). This alert covers the Commission’s recommendations regarding Chapter 11 plans of reorganization and Chapter 11 dismissal orders. It discusses the Commission’s proposed changes to plan confirmation and voting procedures, approving settlements contained in the plan, and releasing insiders from liability.

1. Recommended Changes to Confirmation and Voting Requirements.

High profile insolvencies in the construction industry highlight the risks faced by contractors, and also the way in which debtor companies can seek to obtain advantage through ‘forum shopping’ once insolvency occurs, by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of debtor-friendly countries like the United States.

The confusion over Bitcoin grows in the latest lawsuit brought in a California bankruptcy court by Trustee Mark Kasolas against Marc Lowe, a former employee of HashFast Technologies LLC.

The trustee alleges, among other things, that Lowe received from the bankrupt Bitcoin mining company fraudulent transfers which included 3,000 Bitcoin (“BTC”) in September 2013, valued at approximately $363,861.

The High Court has upheld the pari passu principle central to English insolvency legislation when applied to a deceased’s insolvent estate and interpreting legislation stated to be “modified accordingly”. This approach clarifies that foreign currency claims and claims for interest should be calculated for voting purposes as at the date of death, rather than the date an Insolvency Administration Order (IAO) is made. HFW acted for the respondent in this case.

Introduction

Bankruptcy practitioners routinely advise secured creditor clients to file protective proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings despite those clients’ ability to ignore bankruptcy proceedings and decline filing claims without imperiling their lien due to the protections afforded by state law foreclosure rights.^[1] But a recent Ninth Circuit decision is causing attorneys and clients to reconsider whether this traditionally conservative approach is simply too risky in Chapter 13 cases. HSBC Bank v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), No. 13-35412, 2015 WL 5730015 (9th Cir. Oct.