Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.

In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v O'Grady & Anor 2018 IECA 180 has confirmed that where anapplication for summary judgment is made, a defendant must establish that he has "an arguable defence" to the claim if proceedings are to be remitted to plenary hearing.

Background Facts

Provider Beware! Bankruptcy Payment Order May Be Required to Pay a Bankrupt's Pension to Official Assignee

Welcome to day 3 of our '12 Days of Christmas' series. Today we look back on the effect of bankruptcy on a personal pension policy.

Introduction

In the matter of Mouldpro International Limited (In Liquidation) and in the matter of The Companies Acts 1963 – 2005 the Court of Appeal reduced the fees of the liquidator in respect of three of the four periods of the six-year liquidation of Mouldpro International Limited ("Mouldpro"), finding that the hours claimed for were "neither reasonable nor necessary".

What happens if you assign your right to litigate to a person or company that is unconnected to the event that creates the right to litigate? In the recent Supreme Court case of SPV Osus Ltd –v- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited & Ors [2018] IESC 44, the Supreme Court held that this sort of transaction is void under Irish law and contrary to public policy.

Madoff ponzi scheme litigation

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.

Background

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights