On 20 June 2016, Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais (USD19.26 billion) in debt. The company has also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S.  As from the date of filing the accrual of interests, penalties, monetary correction and late charges are suspended and will only become enforceable if the judicial reorganisation becomes a bankruptcy.

El 20 de junio de 2016 Oi SA, la cuarta empresa brasileña de telecomunicaciones, con sede en Río de Janeiro, presentó la solicitud de reorganización judicial más grande en la historia de Brasil, tras el colapso de negociaciones con acreedores para reestructurar deuda. La solicitud de Oi y sus seis subsidiarias comprenden en total una deuda de 65.4 billones de reales (USD19.26 billones). La empresa también solicitó la protección Chapter 15 en los EE.UU.

Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001

Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.

Facts

Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed on Monday 20 June 2016 the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais ($19.26 billion) in debt. The company also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S. on Tuesday.

In his decision in Global Royalties Limited v. Brook, Chief Justice Strathy of the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) does not provide a bankrupt with a right to appeal an order lifting a stay of proceedings against him. Despite there being a multi-party bankruptcy, he rejected the submission that “the order or decision is likely to affect other cases of a similar nature in the bankruptcy proceedings”.

Directors can be held liable to contribute to company assets if they knew or ought to have known at a point before the commencement of administration or insolvency that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid this process. This is known as wrongful trading (section 214 of the Insolvency Act).

A common query with D&O insurance coverage is whether post-insolvency claims against the insolvent company’s directors and officers trigger the Insured vs. Insured exclusion found in most D&O policies. This issue arises when claims are brought on behalf of the insolvent company against directors in an attempt to recover money for creditors.

Introduction

In Walchuk Estate v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the lower court’s adjournment of a contempt motion was a final order. The decision also provides guidance, yet again, on the proper test for distinguishing between final and interlocutory orders.

Background

1 April 2016 will see the insolvency profession fall in line with other civil litigation as the exemption which enabled the recoverability of CFA success fees and After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums from the unsuccessful party to litigation comes to an end. This recoverability was abolished in other civil litigation in April 2013, principally as one of a number of changes intended to control and reduce the costs of civil litigation.