Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a valuable tool for non-US entities going through foreign insolvency proceedings when they have assets located in the United States. Chapter 15 can protect the value of US assets by granting a stay of actions against those assets during the concurrent administration of a complementary US insolvency process with that of the original foreign insolvency proceeding.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

In In re CII Parent, Inc.,¹ the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a secured lender’s prepetition exercise of its proxy rights and its subsequent removal and replacement of the directors/managers of the debtor’s non-bankrupt subsidiaries, effectively cutting off the debtor’s ability to pursue effective relief in the bankruptcy case.

It may be fair to say that non-US entities involved in a chapter 15 case, the mechanism through which US courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings, do not anticipate having to litigate claims raised in the chapter 15 case outside of the bankruptcy court. This may be due in large part to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), an abstention statute applicable in chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings.

A modification of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan on the eve of the hearing on confirmation of that plan requires re-solicitation of votes and re-voting if the modification materially and adversely affects a class of claims or interests, i.e., equity holders, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in In re America-CV Station Group, Inc., 56 F.4th 1302 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023).

On November 11, 2022, FTX, the world’s third-largest cryptocurrency exchange, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States. Reports suggest that the exchange might have a shortfall of as much as US$8 billion. The collapse has sent shockwaves through the cryptocurrency market, undermined investor confidence and led to renewed calls for authorities to accelerate the implementation of fit-for-purpose regulations.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

In a sudden and stunning collapse, FTX, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, run by 30-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried along with more than 130 entities affiliated with FTX, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware on Friday.[1] Separately, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas appointed a Bahamas-based provisional liquidator for the controlling FTX entity and froze its assets along with

Brazos Electric Cooperative received the go-ahead from Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones to seek creditor approval for its bankruptcy plan that provides for Brazos to pay $1.4 billion to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) for costs stemming from February 2021 winter storms.

The Eleventh Circuit has held that amounts paid post-petition for an administrative expense claim under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code do not reduce the “new value” otherwise available to the creditor as a defense to a preference claim. Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19761 (11th Cir. July 18, 2022).