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

Key Takeaways

Summary

Highlights

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.

On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.

Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).

Background

Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background