In a recent decision related to the SemCrude bankruptcy, the federal district court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings on the efficacy of certain common risk-mitigation tools used in the energy trading and marketing business – namely product payment netting and cross-product setup upon liquidation and closeout. The decision comes amid long-running challenges from producers who had sold product to the SemGroup entities on credit.

The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.

Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.

Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.

On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.

SwissMarine Corporation Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm)

The Commercial Court has recently refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to SwissMarine Corporation Limited (SwissMarine) to restrain proceedings brought by O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (OW) against SwissMarine in Denmark.

Re Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 1500 (Ch)

The Applicants had entered into a pool agreement and time charter with Pan Ocean, both of which were governed by English law and provided for London arbitration. The agreements were terminated, and the Applicants sought damages. Pan Ocean went into rehabilitation in Korean, and the Applicants submitted claims which were rejected by the administrator. The Korean court confirmed that rejection. The Applicants lodged an objection to the court’s decision, and the proceedings were ongoing in Korea.

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions, including financial institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks for creditors who take collateral, in security for the repayment of debt, containing PII data? What are the risks to businesses when they transfer assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Krol v. Key Bank National Association, et al. (In re MCK Millenium Centre Parking, LLC), Adv. No. 14-00392 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2015)

DTEK Finance B.V., Re [2015] EWHC 1164 (Ch)

The Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23. The Court was unanimous in dismissing the appellants’ case that the claimants’ claims against them should be struck out on the grounds of illegality and on the basis that section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does not have extra-territorial effect.

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks to businesses when they sell assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Radio Shack – The pioneer of PII data collection