A bankruptcy remote entity is a special-purpose vehicle (or special purpose entity) (“SPV”) that is formed to hold a defined group of assets and to protect them from being administered as property of a bankruptcy estate. SeePaloian v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Assn (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.), 507 B.R. 558, 701, 702 (N.D. Ill. 2013). Bankruptcy remote entities are intended to separate the credit quality of assets upon which financing is based from the credit and bankruptcy risks of the entities involved in the financing. See id.

Oil price movement through 2014 and into 2015 is a consequence of market fundamentals. Europe’s continued economic woes, paired with the slowdown in China’s economy, have led to a fall in demand for oil.

At the same time, the growing U.S. shale-oil boom (over which OPEC has no control) and the pick-up in drilling in Libya have led to an excess of supply. However, in the past few months the issue has switched from how quickly oil prices have fallen, to how much further they have to fall.

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsuibishi UFJ Ltd v Sanko Mineral (The MV Sanko Mineral) [2014]EWHC 3927 (Admlty)

Cargo Interests began proceedings in the U.S. against the Defendant former owner of the M/V SANKO MINERAL for breach of a contract of carriage. The bill of lading under which the claim was brought incorporated the terms of a charterparty which contained a time bar of 12 months from discharge of cargo.

Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36

PricewaterhouseCoopers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2014] UKPC 35

The Privy Council gives credence to the concept of “modified universalism” (being the court’s common law power to assist foreign winding up proceedings) and notes some of the circumstances which would permit a “stranger” to a winding up order the opportunity to challenge that order.

The facts:

German insolvency law, unlike US insolvency law, only recently introduced (in 2012) the so-called protective shield proceedings (Schutzschirmverfahren) to enable potentially illiquid and/or over-indebted debtors to restructure the company on the basis of a so-called insolvency plan. Thereby, the liquidation of a company by a future insolvency administrator can be avoided.

November 10, 2014, is the deadline for filing proof of claims with the Office of the Special Deputy Receiver in Illinois regarding the estates of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and American Motorists Insurance Company. Those insurance companies are all part of the Lumbermens Mutual Group and were formerly known as Kemper. They entered liquidation on May 10, 2013.

In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.

In its October 1, 2014 decision in Quadrant Structured Prods. Co. v. Vertin, et al., C.A. No. 6990, the Delaware Court of Chancery applied the protections afforded under the business judgment rule to investment strategies adopted by directors of insolvent corporations. The court held that the business judgment rule barred derivative claims asserted against directors by a creditor who had alleged that the company’s high-risk investment strategy was implemented for the purpose of benefitting the corporation’s controller at the creditors’ expense.

Loan agreements and bond indentures often contain "make-whole" provisions, which provide yield protection to lenders and investors in the event of a repayment prior to maturity. They accomplish this by requiring the borrower to pay a premium for pre-payment of a loan. This allows lenders to lock-in a guaranteed rate of return when they agree to provide financing. Borrowers also benefit since the yield protection allows lenders to offer lower interest rates or fees than they would absent such protection.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the “Commission”) approved a series of discrete amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the “UFTA”) and renamed it the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). The UVTA is intended to address inconsistency in the courts, better harmonize with the Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), and provide litigants with greater certainty in its application to a fraudulent transfer action.