The Hong Kong court has held that, in determining whether it should exercise its jurisdiction to sanction a scheme of arrangement in respect of the debts of an insolvent foreign company, the factors to take into account include whether any of the debts are governed by Hong Kong law, such that they would be discharged by an order sanctioning the scheme, and whether sanctioning the scheme would foster comity.

Schemes of arrangement (“schemes”) have become the restructuring tool of choice for English companies or overseas companies that have English law-governed debts.

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court judgment in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and others v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 was handed down on 9 May 2013. It considered: (a) the meaning of the balance sheet insolvency test as laid out in section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"); and (b) the legal effect of a post-enforcement call option ("PECO") and, in particular, whether the existence of a PECO is relevant to an assessment of balance sheet insolvency.

Generally, license agreements are “executory contracts” in bankruptcy. Executory means performance is due from both sides. When a party to an executory contract becomes a debtor in bankruptcy, it may either reject or assume the contract. However, non-debtor parties (or “counterparties”) enjoy some protections, especially when the contract is a license agreement for intellectual property.

The basics.

AMR Corp. and its subsidiaries (collectively “AMR”), including American Airlines Inc., filed for Chapter 11 protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) on November 29, 2011.

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an important opinion1 in the ongoing fraudulent conveyance litigation brought by the unsecured creditors’ committee in the bankruptcy of homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”).

London - On 29 February 2012, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in the much publicised ‘Lehman client money’ case1, ruling in favour of those clients of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) whose money ought to have been, but never was, segregated from other assets held by LBIE.

On July 6, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) approved a final rule (the “Final Rule”) addressing certain provisions of the Orderly Liquidation Authority (“OLA”) contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).1

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a certificateholder of two CMBS securitization trusts (“CMBS Trusts”) had no standing to be heard in a chapter 11 case involving the borrowers under a securitized mortgage loan held by the CMBS Trusts.

On March 15, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) to implement certain orderly liquidation authority (“OLA”) provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).