In Greb v. Diamond Int’l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the assertion that dissolved foreign corporations may be sued in California after the time of the statute of limitations provided by the laws under which the foreign corporations were incorporated.
The Fifth Circuit recently upheld a Texas Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to enforce non-debtor third party releases in the Mexican reorganization proceeding (known as a concursomercantil) of Mexican glass manufacturer Vitro SAB de CV. As a result of this decision, Wall Street and the capital markets will breathe a sigh of relief and will likely continue to extend credit to Mexican corporations with some confidence that guaranties will be enforced.
In a widely followed dispute, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will soon render a decision on the appeal of a Texas Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to recognize non-debtor third party releases in the Mexican reorganization proceeding (concurso mercantil) of Mexican glass manufacturer Vitro SAB de CV. Wall Street and the capital markets will be watching this appeal closely as a reversal of the Bankruptcy Court would likely make lenders and bondholders extremely nervous about extending future credit to Mexican corporations.
In the recent decision of Kenneth Krys and Joanna Lau (as Joint Liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited in Liquidation) and Stichting Shell Pension Funds, HCVAP 2011/036, the ECSC Court of Appeal provided some clarification of its decision in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees Limited et al HCVAP No. 14 of 2010.
This article sets out the potential impact in the BVI and Cayman of the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, which was handed down on 24 October 2012. Rubin deals with the issue of whether orders made in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States can be enforced as judgments of the English Courts.
COMPETING SETS OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES
Important clarification was provided today to the insolvency world as the UK Supreme Court in the conjoined appeals in Rubin and New Cap rejected the modified universalist doctrine that established common law rules as to the enforcement of foreign judgments do not (or should not) apply to insolvency orders.
In Deephaven Distressed Opportunities Tradings, Ltd. v. 3V Capital Master Fund Ltd., Index No. 600610/08 (Sup. Ct., NY County, Jun. 26, 2012), Judge Melvin L. Schweitzer denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on its damages claims. The case arose from a dispute over the trade of distressed claims in the Sea Container, Inc. bankruptcy. Deephaven and 3V Capital executed trade confirmations that would convey “allowed” claims to 3V Capital subject to a negotiated assignment agreement. The parties signed confirmations on three trades, two of which led to this dispute.
In Skov v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2102 WL 2549811 (June 8, 2012), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain a demurrer against plaintiff Andrea Skov’s second amended complaint, holding that she had stated a claim for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, which requires a lender to contact a defaulted borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before starting a nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a notice of default.
On June 28, 2012, Stockton, California became the most recent municipality to file for bankruptcy under chapter 9, after having concluded a mandatory mediation process with its creditors. See, In re City of Stockton, California, Case No. 12-32118 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.). Many parties affected by a potential filing by other similarly situated California public entities are seeking to understand the process that precedes a Chapter 9 filing and how to plan for a possible filing.
On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a debtor could not confirm a plan over a secured creditor’s objection if the plan provided for the sale of the secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens, but did not provide the secured creditor with the option of credit-bidding at the sale. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3944 (U.S. May 29, 2012). Such a plan, the Supreme Court held, does not meet the statutory requirements for “fair and equitable” treatment of an objecting secured class in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A).