Recognition of UK insolvencies in Europe after Brexit[1] is navigating uncertain waters. Following the completion of Brexit, the UK has left parts of the EU's private international law realm, including the application of Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on Insolvency proceedings (the EU Insolvency Regulation). Therefore, since January this year, any reciprocal statutory cooperation in insolvency law matters between the UK and the EU has ceased.
This legal guide summarises the scope of directors’ duties when a British Virgin Islands company encounters financial difficulties.
Introduction
This legal guide should be read in conjunction with the legal guide entitled “Duties of a director under British Virgin Islands Law” which describes in further detail the duties which British Virgin Islands law imposes on a director generally.
While it had been clear for most of the recent economic downturn that the 24% of Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE) listed companies incorporated in Bermuda may have recourse to the court in their place of incorporation to secure an adjournment or stay of an actual or anticipated winding up petition in Hong Kong, it is now equally clear that Cayman incorporated companies (which represent another 50% of the HKSE) will have similar access to restructuring assistance.
This briefing note provides an overview of some of the commercial reasons for and the technical legal requirements of a company wishing to acquire its own shares (also referred to as “share buy-backs”).
Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.
The Bottom Line
Statutory demands are often conflated with other debt recovery mechanisms available to creditors. Whilst a statutory demand may, in certain circumstances, be a useful tool in the debt recovery kit, its primary function is to establish whether a company can pay its debts as they fall due i.e. whether it satisfies the “cash flow test”.
In Guernsey, a company must pass both the cash flow and balance sheet solvency tests to meet the definition of solvency.
In the latest decision arising out of long-running disputes over confirmation of the Tribune Company’s Chapter 11 plan, the Third Circuit issued important new guidance concerning the enforceability of subordination agreements in cramdown plans, holding (1) that subordination agreements “need not be strictly enforced” in such plans, and (2) that the relevant comparison, for determining unfair discrimination, need not always be a comparison between the recovery of the preferred class and the dissenting class, but may sometimes entail a comparison between the dissenting class’s desired and act
The Bottom Line
The Third Circuit, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. de C.V. v. N. Mill Capital, LLC (In re Wilton Armetale, Inc.), 968 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2020), issued a decision with potential implications for creditors who wish to pursue causes of action after a bankruptcy trustee refuses to act on such claims. The Third Circuit held that if a bankruptcy trustee clearly abandons a cause of action, the right of creditors to pursue that cause of action “spring[s] back to life.”
What Happened?
The Ninth Circuit, in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2020), issued a significant decision on the issue of whether nonconsensual third-party releases are ever permitted in Chapter 11 plans. Distinguishing its prior decisions on the topic, the Ninth Circuit permitted a nonconsensual third-party release that was limited to the exculpation of participants in the reorganization from claims based on actions taken during the case.
Statutory Background