Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).
Today 'soft touch' provisional liquidation is one of the most commonly deployed tools for facilitating a restructuring of offshore incorporated companies listed in Hong Kong and Singapore. However, when soft touch provisional liquidation was first developed by the Bermuda Court for this purpose, it was regarded as a tool of last resort.
The Bankruptcy (Netting, Contractual Subordination and Non-Petition Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2005 (the “Netting Law”) is a short piece of legislation of particular significance to financing transactions involving Jersey counterparties.
The relationship between arbitration clauses and winding up proceedings is a contentious issue in many jurisdictions and the debate shows no sign of abating. In the BVI, a recent case has further clarified the effect of an arbitration agreement on creditor's winding up proceedings pursued on the basis of a company's insolvency.
Statutory demands in the British Virgin Islands have long been a useful option for creditors of defaulting companies. Properly utilised, they either secure payment of the outstanding debt or provide the creditor with the benefit of a statutory presumption of insolvency to assist in their application to appoint a liquidator over the company.
Stephen John Hunt v Transworld Payment Solutions U.K. Limited (in liquidation) [2020] SC (Bda) 14 Com The Bermuda Supreme Court has clarified the rules for granting common law recognition and assistance to foreign insolvency office holders following the landmark competing Privy Council decisions of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Price Waterhouse Coopers [2014] UKPC 36 and Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (of Navigator Holding PLC and others) [2006] UKPC 26.
Everyone, including the least empathic in our society (aka, lawyers), knows that we should seek to uphold the golden rule and “do unto others…” with respect to family, friends, and acquaintances, but does this also apply in the corporate world? Apparently so, as a Delaware bankruptcy court just ruled that preferred shareholders with a bankruptcy-filing blocking right (also known as a “Golden Share”) must consider the effects on other shareholders and all other creditors when exercising such right.
Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.
No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.
Background
On 2 June 2020, Mr Justice Morgan handed down his judgment in the case of Re: A Company [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) in which a High Street retailer (whose identity is not disclosed) applied to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on the provisions of the yet-to-be-enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the “Bill”).