This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled that debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases cannot “strip off,” or completely void, junior mortgages that—based on the value of the property and the amount of claims secured by senior mortgages—are completely underwater.

Timely proof of claim filings by secured creditors have “been a thorn in the side of many Chapter 13 cases involving secured creditors,” according to Judge Wood in In re Pajian. However, a recent Seventh Circuit decision may cause the industry to revise their current process for proof of claim filings. Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) requires creditors to file proofs of claim within 90 days of the date set for the meeting of creditors. Bankruptcy courts have come to conflicting conclusions on whether Rule 3002(c)’s deadline applies to all creditors or merely unsecured ones.

In general terms, section 110 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) amends the provisions of the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 (the CDDA 1986) in relation to directors’ disqualification.

One of the changes introduced is that the Secretary of State will be able to apply to the court for a compensation order against a director who has been disqualified where creditors have suffered identifiable losses from the director’s misconduct¹.

A recent Western Australian decision has provided guidance on the limits of an insolvent contractor’s ability to enforce an adjudication determination where the principal has an offsetting claim.

4 February 2015 saw Copenship A/S, a significant charterer of bulk vessels, and its subsidiary Copenship Bunkers A/S, file for bankruptcy in the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial Court.

The bankruptcy of Copenship marks the latest in a series of recent high-profile shipping insolvencies, and with no significant improvement to the bulk market in sight there may well be more to come.

A confluence of factors, including high debt, spiraling pension obligations, and lower sales and property tax revenues, has forced more municipalities to face insolvency than any time since the 1930s. The two largest municipal bankruptcies in history — Jefferson County, Ala., and Detroit, Mich. — recently ended. With the economy improving, we may never see the wave of municipal bankruptcies some commentators predicted.

On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the latest installmentin the jurisdictional saga of bankruptcy courts. As the highly anticipatedsequel to Stern v.

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts

As the bankruptcy of OW Bunker has shown, insolvency in a shipping context can cause significant, far reaching and immediate legal uncertainty. The interaction of insolvency procedures, jurisdictional issues, and the complex web of contractual relationships involved in shipping insolvencies creates unique practical and legal challenges. In this Briefing, we consider from a Hong Kong perspective some of the practical issues that commonly arise.

Insolvency in the Hong Kong Courts

On 9 July 2013, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive on package travel and assisted travel arrangements to replace the Package Travel Directive¹ (the Directive) which has been long thought to have become outdated in the face of the growth of the internet and the “dynamic packaging” industry. Following extensive consultation with industry representatives and trade bodies, an amended version of the Commission’s proposal was adopted by the European Parliament on 12 March 2014 (the Proposed Directive).