In the recent judgment of the ECSC in the matter of Sumner Group Mining Limited v Zica S.A (BVIHC (Com) 2020/0171, Walkers successfully represented the respondent in defending an application to set aside a statutory demand. Jack J provided helpful guidance on the legal principles in circumstances where it is alleged that a statutory demand had been served improperly for a collateral purpose.

The applicant sought to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of either:

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Court") recently handed down a decision in the case of BDO Cayman Ltd. and BDO Trinity Ltd. v Ardent Harmony Fund Inc. (In Official Liquidation). This case provides helpful guidance on the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant leave to commence proceedings against a company in liquidation.

Background

Practical Effects Of Significant Reforms To Guernsey’s Insolvency Law With reference to practical examples from England & Wales, this briefing note seeks to highlight three areas of change that will be of particular interest to Insolvency Practitioners, directors involved with Guernsey companies and their professional advisors once the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the “Ordinance”) comes into force. Enhanced Investigatory Powers The Ordinance extends insolvency professionals’ powers in four important respects.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Grand Court”) in the matter of Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited (FSD 160 of 2020), the Chief Justice considered the principles applicable to the appointment of “soft touch” provisional liquidators to effect the restructuring of a Hong Kong-listed Cayman Islands company where two competing winding up petitions were filed before the High Court of Hong Kong (the ("HK Petitions" and the “HK Court” respectively).

On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.

Background

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

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