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.

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.

The new United Arab Emirates (UAE) Insolvency Law (Federal Law No.9 of 2016) (Insolvency Law) was published in the UAE Gazette on 29 September 2016 and came in to force three months later on 29 December 2016. The Insolvency Law is a federal law that applies to all seven emirates comprising the UAE. The initial view from market participants is that by replacing the old insolvency law, which placed a greater emphasis on creditor protections and formal bankruptcy proceedings alongside criminal penalties, the Insolvency Law is an overdue but welcome development.

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the scope of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)’s safe harbor provision. Section 546(e) protects from avoidance those transfers that are made “by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, except where there is actual fraud. The safe harbor is intended to ensure the stability of the securities market in the event of corporate restructurings.

As noted in a recent Distressing Matters post, the United States Supreme Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp. held that debtors cannot use structured dismissals to make payments to creditors in violation of ordinary bankruptcy distribution priority rules.

In 2015, Distressing Matters reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp., wherein that panel ruled that, in rare circumstances, bankruptcy courts may approve the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory priority scheme.

Briefings

The latest victims of the prolonged downturn in the offshore, marine and oil and gas sectors, Singapore-based Ezra Holdings and EMAS, have sought Chapter 11 protection with the US bankruptcy courts. Whilst it is as yet unclear whether these companies will “go under”, this briefing sets out the latest events and key issues affecting operators who may find themselves dealing with counterparties in similar insolvency proceedings and financial difficulties.

Background

The filing of a bankruptcy case puts in place an automatic injunction, or stay, that halts most actions by creditors against a debtor. But can a creditor violate the automatic stay by not acting? The Tenth Circuit recently addressed the issue in WD Equipment, LLC v. Cowen (In re Cowen), adding to the split of authority on the issue.

Privilege – post Hastie

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Hastie Group (In Liq.) v Moore1 underlines the view that disclosure of the mere existence of privileged documents to third parties will not necessarily waive privilege.

Key Facts

The liquidators of Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq.) (Hastie) had obtained orders extending the time for service of a statement of claim alleging professional negligence against Hastie’s Auditor, Deloitte (Auditor), between 2008 and 2010.