Manley Toys Limited once claimed to be the seventh largest toy company in the world. Due to ongoing litigation and declining sales, it entered into a voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong. On March 22, 2016, the debtor’s appointed liquidators and foreign representatives filed a motion for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion was opposed by ASI Inc., f/k/a Aviva Sports, Inc. (“Aviva”) and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“TRU”).

Accountability is the major theme of the recent government consultation regarding ‘Insolvency and Corporate Governance’, which follows high profile failures such as BHS and Carillion. The consultation contains proposals relating to four main areas as set out below.

Sales of businesses in distress

The proposal represents a significant extension of the current duties owed by directors. Under the proposal, a director of a parent company may be held liable for losses following a sale of a subsidiary if:

LEXISNEXIS A.S. PRATT

APRIL/MAY 2018

EDITOR'S NOTE: COMPARATIVE LAW Steven A. Meyerowitz

WHAT'S PAST IS PROLOGUE: THE EUROPEAN MOVEMENT TOWARD HARMONIZED PRE-INSOLVENCY BUSINESS RESTRUCTURINGS CONTRASTED WITH THE AMERICAN PREFERENCE FOR GOING-CONCERN ASSET SALES Harry Rajak, Patrick E. Mears, and Edward O. Mears

LANDMARK COURT OPINION INCREASES LIABILITY RISK PROFILE FOR GERMAN PORTFOLIO COMPANY MANAGEMENT Bernd Meyer-Lwy and Carl Pickerill

SPLIT FIRST CIRCUIT PREVENTS NON-DEBTOR LICENSEE FROM USING REJECTED TRADEMARK LICENSE Michael L. Cook

A bankruptcy trustee could not “avoid [a] debtor’s transfer” of encumbered asset sale proceeds when the debtor holds the funds “as a mere disbursing agent [under] a contract that” restricted its use, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 18, 2018. Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9772 *14 (1st Cir. Apr. 18, 2018).

A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a debtor’s asserted violation of the court’s discharge injunction, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, *20 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018).

Fifth Circuit Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Transfer Claims

By Michael L. Cook*

THE BANKING LAW JOURNAL

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer and Fiduciary Duty Claims

Michael L. Cook* This article discusses a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision holding that the debt-financed purchase of a business was not a fraudulent transfer and did not violate the fiduciary duty of the company's directors.

Date

6/22/2017

Action

Testimony of Keith Noreika, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Key Provisions

The Comptroller made a series of recommendations for regulatory reforms directed at promoting economic growth and reducing regulatory burden. He stated that the OCC’s recommendations are consistent with the Treasury Report.

Key recommendations include:

The Bankruptcy Code allows trustees, as well as debtors-in-possession and in some circumstances creditors’ committees, to set aside and recover certain transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. The purpose of the avoidance powers is to maximize funds available for creditors and to ensure equality of distribution among creditors’ claims. The avoidance powers are not without bounds, however, as the Code sets forth a number of exceptions — most notably, the so-called “securities contract safe harbor” under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.