Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.
When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator steps into a pivotal role – one that requires navigating complex challenges to recover assets and maximize returns for creditors. This task entails conducting detailed investigations and pursuing legal actions, processes that demand a careful balance of inquiry, judgment, and responsibility.
The Privy Council's recent judgment in Weavering[1]upheld the decisions of the Cayman Islands Grand Court and Court of Appeal that payments made to redeemed investors immediately prior to the fund's liquidation were preference payments under section 145(1) of the Companies Law (2018 Revision) (Law), and must be repaid.
RE Z III Trust [2019] JRC 069
The Royal Court of Jersey has determined that the preferred course to follow when winding up an insolvent trust is for the existing trustee to apply a formal winding up procedure under the Court's supervision. Key features of this procedure would be (i) a moratorium on legal claims; (ii) the trustee should advertise for claims on the trust assets; and (iii) the trustee should require creditors to prove their claims before distributing the assets.
The Z Trusts litigation
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.
Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).
On April 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane issued an opinion in the Waterford Wedgwood bankruptcy discussing at length one of the defenses available to preference defendants. The opinion turns upon the scope of “ordinary business terms,” the objective prong of the ordinary course of business defense.
A recent opinion out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division) serves as a reminder to secured creditors to steer clear of conduct that a bankruptcy court may deem inequitable and provide the court with cause to limit the secured creditor’s credit bid rights. In In re The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co.