The doctrine of substantive consolidation (generally- the power of a bankruptcy court to consolidate the assets and liabilities of affiliated entities in bankruptcy) is a recognized remedy exercised by bankruptcy courts – one that strikes fear into the hearts of many lenders. Justifiably so. The doctrine can be employed to order the substantive consolidation of related-debtor entities in bankruptcy and it can also be employed to substantively consolidate the assets of a debtor in bankruptcy with those of a related entity that is not a debtor in bankruptcy.
The last decade has exposed the bankruptcy courts across the globe to a large volume of international work, and with that experience in mind, the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) held its inaugural meeting in Singapore in late 2016. Its intent was to formulate a set of guidelines (theGuidelines) that would promote cooperation between Courts. Sitting alongside common law and legislative cross-border provisions, the Guidelines are a practical code to enhance some of the most successful cross-border initiatives of recent years.
In a 2-1 opinion, the Second Circuit overruled the district court in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., finding no violation of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in connection with an out-of-court debt restructuring.
Background
In an era of increasing complexity in regulation globally, the BVI has carefully built a simple and clear regulatory framework that minimises the legal risk for lenders and financial markets participants dealing with BVI companies.
Legal
The BVI’s regulatory framework is structured to make the legal risk of lending or selling financial assets to a BVI entity lower than almost any other jurisdiction.
In a recent decision in the case of TIPP Investments PCC v. Chagala Group Ltd. et al (BVIHCM 102/2016), Mr Justice Davis-White clarified the issue of the standing of beneficial shareholders that we highlighted in our previous article.
The European Commission (EC) announced proposals on 22 November 2016, which are intended to harmonise national insolvency laws across the EU through a proposed directive “on preventative restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures” (Directive). The Directive will need to be passed by the European Council and European Parliament. Then, EU Member States would be required to adopt the Directive’s provisions into their respective national laws within two years from the date of its entry into force.
Section 97 of Bermuda’s Companies Act 1981 imposes a statutory duty on every director to: (a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and (b) exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. The test is therefore an objective one using the reasonably prudent person as a comparator (see Focus Insurance Co Ltd v Hardy [1992] Bda LR 25 which appears to suggest that an element of subjectivity may also be considered in Bermuda.
The Barton doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Barton v. Barbour, 104 US 126 (1881)), generally prohibits suits against receivers and bankruptcy trustees in forums other than the appointing courts, absent appointing court's permission. It applies to suits that involve actions done in the officers' official capacity and within their authority as officers of the court.
The Bermuda Commercial Court has provided guidance as to the considerations it will take into account when deciding the identity of the JPLs, further to our article on the Up Energy Group Ltd (the Company) restructuring and the circumstances in which Joint Provisional Liquidators (JPLs) will be appointed to monitor the proposed restructuring of a Be