The Privy Council sitting as the final court of appeal for the Cayman Islands recently considered a case concerning prioritisation in a Liquidation between feeder hedge funds where the investment medium was redeemable shares.

Background

The appellant in this case was the Liquidator of Herald Fund SPC ("Herald"). Herald is a Cayman Islands registered hedge fund that invested heavily into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the historic Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff that collapsed spectacularly in 2008.

Introduction

In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the “SAAMCO principle”). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.

The SAAMCO principle

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the "Recast Insolvency Regulation") has come into force for any insolvency proceedings commenced on or after 27 June 2017. In line with EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 (the "Original Insolvency Regulation"), the Recast Insolvency Regulation focusses on cross border recognition of Insolvency proceedings and, as a Regulation, it applies without the need for specific implementing legislation in each state.

Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

Summer 2017

Editor: Melanie Willems

IN THIS ISSUE

You Swynson, you lose some

by Robert Blackett 03

10

14

The rule of English law - why Brexit, however blindly foolish it

is, should not matter for arbitration

by Melanie Willems

Unintended consequences - be clear what you advise on

by Ryan Deane

T H E A R B I T E R [ S E A S O N ] 2 0 1 7 2

T H E A R B I T E R S U M M E R 2 0 1 7 3

You Swynson, you lose

some

by Robert Blacke

Lowick Rose LLP (in liquidaon) v Swynson

A case decided last week by the Sixth Circuit illustrates the importance of seeking bankruptcy claim policy amendments when placing D&O coverage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Zucker (6th Cir. Jun. 20, 2017) involved the application of the insured-vs.-insured exclusion and specifically, whether the policy’s insured-vs.-insured exclusion precluded coverage for a claim brought by a company’s liquidating trust, to which the company’s claims had been assigned by the company as debtor-in-possession after the company filed for bankruptcy.

This case involved an application for security for costs against Mr Nogotkov who is, or claims to be, the Liquidator appointed by a Russian court of Dalnyaya Step LLC ("DSL").

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.

"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.