In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

The Court of Appeal has struck out Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance claims brought by the liquidators of a company running a Ponzi scheme against a correspondent bank that operated various accounts for the company.

The Court of Appeal has struck out Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance claims brought by the liquidators of a company operating a Ponzi scheme against a correspondent bank that operated various accounts for the company.

Esta Resolución, tramitada con arreglo a lo previsto en el artículo 13 de la Circular 1/2021, de 20 de enero, de la CNMC, por la que se establece la metodología y condiciones del acceso y de la conexión a las redes de transporte y distribución de las instalaciones de producción de energía eléctrica, vendría a completar el marco normativo del acceso y conexión y daría cumplimiento a lo previsto en su Disposición Transitoria Única. De esta forma:

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

A recent pair of decisions of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court”) has immense potential significance for debtor companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (“HKEx”) and their Hong Kong creditors.

Facts

Re Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622 and Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 651 both involved a familiar factual scenario:

Key Takeaways

A recent decision illustrates the court’s approach to providing non-party access to documents referred to at a public hearing, in the context of a proposed scheme of arrangement: Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 454 (Ch).