Yes, says the First Circuit. The First Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny a group of bondholders’ (the “Bondholders”) motion to have a trustee appointed for the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “System”) under section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to appoint a trustee to pursue avoidance actions in Chapter 9 cases.

In the wake of the high profile collapse of the private equity firm Abraaj Capital, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) updated its insolvency regime with the introduction on June 13, 2019 of the new DIFC Insolvency Law (Law No.1 of 2019) (the “DIFC Insolvency Law”).

Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.

On 8 April 2020, the Council of Ministers approved Law Decree no. 23, published in the Official Gazette (General Series no. 94, Extraordinary Edition of 8 April, 2020), containing “Urgent measures related to access to credit and tax obligations for businesses, special powers in strategic industry sectors, as well as healthcare and employment interventions, prorogation of administrative and procedural deadlines”.

With the significant strain placed on market participants as a result of the combined impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the oil price war and the ensuing liquidity and credit crunches, we expect that a number of enterprises in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") will either be forced to carry out restructurings or otherwise undergo formal court-supervised insolvency processes.

With a recession appearing to be inevitable, for many companies innovation is more important than ever. Innovating and contracting in times of crisis requires caution, however, and contracts should as far as possible be insolvency-proof. Popular solutions include guarantees, sureties and retention of title. But it may be worth considering a lesser known option, the intercompany settlement clause, which works as follows.

Paying a debt to an insolvent company

The UK Government has announced wide-ranging emergency legislation in response to the Coronavirus crisis, in an attempt to reduce the burden on business and allow them to carry on trading during and after the pandemic. Some of the changes (other than the one on wrongful trading) were already intended following a consultation process that concluded in 2018 but are now being fast tracked.

Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.

The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.