Court dismisses challenge to pay to be paid clause in charterers’ liability insurance

MS Amlin Marine NV on behalf of MS Amlin Syndicate AML/2001 -v- King Trader Ltd & others (Solomon Trader) [2024] EWHC 1813 (Comm)

In a dispute over whether third parties were prevented by a “pay to be paid” clause from bringing a claim against insurers under a charterers’ liability insurance, the Court has confirmed that, in the context of marine insurance, such clauses are valid and will be upheld.

Hellard & others -v- OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & others [202] EWHC 1783 (Ch)

In dealing with whether trustees in bankruptcy might potentially be breaching UK sanctions legislation by allowing Russian creditors to participate in UK liquidation proceedings, the Court has considered recent authorities on whether a designated person can be said to directly or indirectly own or control an entity and has offered its own perspective on how the relevant wording in the legislation should be construed.

The background facts

Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.

Background

In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.

China City Construction Holding Group Co Ltd -v- Patrick Cowley and Lui Yee Man, Joint and Several Liquidators of China City Construction (International) Co Ltd [2024] HKCFI 219

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the Court) has examined the issue of the scope of information required to be disclosed by liquidators to creditors and whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order discovery if it is just and beneficial to do so.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

On 4 May 2023, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) delivered a landmark judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam (Respondent) -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (Appellant) Final Appeal No.13 of 2022 (on appeal from CACV No. 393 of 2021 [2023 HKCFA 9) (“Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam”).

Back on 4 May 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA”) in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 delivered a ground breaking judgment in relation to whether a foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) should be upheld in insolvency cases, upholding the Court of Appeal’s (the “CA”) judgment that, in an ordinary case where there is an EJC, absent any countervailing factors such as the risk of insolvency affecting third parties and a dispute that borders on the frivolous or abuse of process, the petitioner and the debtor ought to be held to their contract and to submit their disput

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure