“You have been served” – the famous phrase uttered by process servers everywhere, may never be heard by a bankruptcy defendant.

Why?

On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On May 8, 2017, Judge Gross ruled on a Motion to Compel Production of Documents in the Haggen bankruptcy. Judge Gross’ opinion (the “Opinion”) addresses the conflict when a party is acting on another’s behalf and that entity claims “the oldest of the common law privileges”. Opinion at *5. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).

Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

In the recent decision of In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), Judge Sontchi held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to counsel to the creditors committee in a case with a confirmed chapter 11 plan.

In a 33 page decision released March 29, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on competing motions to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in an adversary proceeding in the Affirmative Insurance bankruptcy – Adversary Proceeding Case No. 16-50425.

新疆某上市公司（下称“公司”）因信息披露违规被中国证监会行政处罚，引发众多股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼（下称“本案”），金杜代理公司应诉。近期，新疆某中级法院就本案作出一审判决，驳回股民全部诉讼请求。

本案系典型的证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼。该类案件因涉及股民众多、索赔金额高、专业性强，往往引发资本市场高度关注。从以往的案例来看，上市公司被行政处罚后引发的股民诉讼，法院判决驳回原告全部诉讼请求的案例极为罕见。本案中，金杜基于以往处理类似案件的丰富经验和专业把握，针对本案的案情特点，有针对性地提出了上市公司不应承担股民损失的答辩意见，最终得到法院支持。这是金杜代理上市公司成功应对股民提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼的又一经典案例。

案情简介

2014年7月，中国证监会作出《行政处罚决定书》，认定公司连续多年虚构购销业务，虚增业务收入与成本，虚增或者虚减利润，导致公司2006年至2011年年报存在信息披露违规问题。

截止目前，本案共有70余名股民对公司提起证券虚假陈述民事赔偿诉讼，此外，还有批量股民以律师函的方式向公司进行索赔。

本案主要争议焦点及金杜整体应对思路