Our two-part article on non-con and true sale issues in insurance contexts continues with a deeper dive into the considerations that distinguish these issues from similar remoteness principles in a Bankruptcy Code context. In Part One, we explained some of the basics of state insurance law that bear on these issues and how these can give rise to different approaches in opinion-giving; in this Part Two, we identify some practical obstacles that arise in these kinds of contexts and opinions.

A Pennsylvania Hypothetical

Indentures and other agreements governing complex, multitiered structured debt products will typically contain a series of reserves, the adequacy of whose funding will take precedence over payments to noteholders. While the funding requirements of the reserve accounts will be set forth in the agreement, the formulation of these provisions will leave administrators considerable leeway in determining the cash maintenance levels appropriate for the various accounts. In a recent case, UMB National Association v. Airplanes Limited (S.D.N.Y.

This two-part article discusses the key concerns, from a non-consolidation and true sale perspective, that arise when an insurance company, as opposed to a bankruptcy-eligible entity, is a sponsor/seller in a securitization or similar structured finance transaction. This Part One introduces the main contrasts between non-con and true sale analysis in a traditional bankruptcy context and such analysis in an insurance-law scenario.

Unlike an opinion, an order of the court is often not from the pen of the judge. Typically, a court order is submitted to the judge after negotiation among the parties. So, when a disagreement arises among the parties regarding the interpretation of the court’s order, how does the judge who signed the order go about resolving the matter? The issue came up not long ago in Outer Harbor Terminal LLC (Bkr. D. Del. May, 5, 2017), in which Judge Laurie Silverstein of the District of  Delaware bankruptcy court was confronted with a dispute over her own final DIP order.

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has issued a judgment1 examining the instances in which the Hong Kong courts will exercise their jurisdiction to wind-up a foreign company.

In a welcome decision the CFI has made it clear that, given certain conditions, creditors will be able to enlist the winding-up jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts in order to exert pressure on foreign companies which refuse to pay their debts.

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.

Most commodities contracts are cross border, often with one or more parties located in a country where gaining access or cooperation to enforce an arbitration award or court judgment can be challenging.

If your counterparty is in a ‘difficult’ country, is there any point in incurring the time and cost of pursuing a claim in arbitration or litigation against them at all? Alternatively, do you already have awards or judgments against parties that you have not found a way to enforce? Are they worth any more than the paper they are written on?

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In a recent landmark judgment, the Singapore High Court has ruled that it has the power to alter priorities between maritime claimants in “exceptional circumstances”.

In THE POSIDON (2017) SGHC 138, Piraeus Bank (Bank) commenced two mortgagee actions in Singapore, arising from the ship owner’s default under a loan agreement, and arrested two vessels, THE POSIDON and THE PEGASUS. These vessels were subsequently sold by judicial sale.