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 recent years, there has been an increasing trend for different creditors to issue multiple petitions against the same debtor company. This may be due to the large number of listed companies in Hong Kong encountering financial difficulties during this period of economic downturn, or simply a lack of knowledge of the law in this area.

In May 2021, we published an article, Milestone in Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency: Mutual recognition of and assistance to Insolvency Proceedings between Hong Kong and Mainland China, which highlighted the key features of the cooperation mechanism in relation to Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency set out in the Record of Meeting of the Supreme Peopl

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

On 28 June 2021, the English High Court handed down a judgment declining to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy PLC, which sought to cram down the dissenting class of shareholders and hand over the control of the company to its bondholders with a debt-for-equity swap diluting the shareholders down to 5% of their existing shareholding. This is the first time that the English court has declined to sanction a restructuring plan (since their introduction almost a year ago in June 2020), and only the fourth time that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used.

The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).

Background

On 14 May 2021, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice and the Vice-President of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong (Record of Meeting), which signifies the consensus on the mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions in accordance with the principle of reciprocity and with a view to promoting closer cross-border judicial cooperation on insolvency matters.

On 14 May 2021, the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, and Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), Mr Yang Wanming, signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance in relation to insolvency proceedings between the courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background

Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background