In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.
Significance
On October 29, 2021, Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the presiding judge in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case, ruled that approximately $2 billion in intragovernmental loan claims were subordinated to bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) pursuant to an assignment and security agreement.1 The Court’s opinion
On 20 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) handed down a judgement in the matter of JP Markets v FSCA (Case no 460/2021) [2021] ZASCA 148 (20 October 2021) in terms of which the SCA set aside the decision of the High Court to place JP Markets (Pty) Ltd (“JP Markets”) into liquidation, finding that it was not just and equitable.
In a landmark bankruptcy case judgment issued on 10 October 2021 the Dubai Court of First Instance has held the directors and managers of an insolvent Dubai-based PJSC to be personally liable to pay the outstanding debts of the previously listed company (now in liquidation) pursuant to the UAE Bankruptcy Law. This decision represents a very significant milestone in the UAE insolvency landscape since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Law in late 2016, being the first known instance of a case where such personal liability has been ordered.
In Holliday v. Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") Judge George B. Daniels affirmed the dismissal of state law transfer avoidance claims related to a leveraged securities buyout transaction.
On 9 June 2021, the Dubai Court of Cassation adopting a restrictive interpretation of the UAE Federal Law No 11 of 1992 and its amendments (the Civil Procedure Code) has added a requirement for the success of a debt recovery claim through a payment order application to the summary judge: there must be written evidence that the debt was either accepted or acknowledged by the debtor. This article provides an overview of the legal requirements of the payment order claim and what this new requirement of the Dubai Court of Cassation means for creditors in Dubai.
The High Court has given its blessing, in two recent cases, to ever more creative company restructuring – which will be a relief to occupational tenants as they look to emerge from COVID, but will likely give landlords cause for concern.
What happened in the New Look case? |
Lenders often require their borrowers to be “special purpose entities” in real estate transactions. This is a way that lenders can mitigate their bankruptcy risk in the event that the borrower or any of its parent entities file for bankruptcy. In addition, since most real estate financing is non-recourse, lenders require that the borrower is a separate, special purpose entity so that no other property or business will impact the property which is the subject of the underlying loan.
The COVID-19 pandemic is also keeping legislators on their toes, who are continuing to try to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the economy. The focus was initially on the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Following on from this, with the Act on the Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG), which came into force on 1 January 2021, the legislator has further modified obligations of conduct and, correspondingly, the liability of managing directors in the crisis of the company.
In re Fencepost Productions Inc. that even though an assignment of voting rights provision in a subordination agreement was not enforceable in a bankruptcy proceeding, a subordinated creditor nevertheless was barred from participating in proceedings related to a chapter 11 plan and disclosure statement on the basis that the subordinated creditor lacked prudential standing.