Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.
In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.
La Sentencia del 11 de julio de 2018 consolida la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo que reconoce la existencia de un grupo de sociedades cuando el control es ejercido por una persona física.
Bankruptcy
Legal Alert
Authors
George P. Angelich Partner New York, NY 212.457.5423 [email protected]
M. Douglas Flahaut Counsel Los Angeles, CA 213.443.7559 [email protected]
La reciente Sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS de 26 de abril de 2018 analiza una cesión en pago realizada justo antes de la declaración de concurso. Atendiendo a las circunstancias concretas del caso (quita del 50% del crédito cancelado; acreedor sin vinculación ni condición especial; convenio posterior con quita similar), el Supremo considera que no procede rescindir la operación.
El Tribunal Supremo considera que la falta de legitimación para recurrir de una concursada en liquidación fue subsanada con la ratificación posterior de su administración concursal.
La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo de 23 de mayo de 2018 (Ponente Ignacio Sancho Gargallo) analiza el papel de la concursada en liquidación y de la administración concursal a la hora de interponer recursos en procedimientos en trámite antes de la declaración de concurso y apertura de la fase de liquidación.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held in In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC that while Rule 3001 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for transfers of claims, Rule 3001 is not a substantive provision allowing claims trading for notes with legally valid anti-assignment provisions.
Background
The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.
Freezing Orders: What Are They?
In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.
Highlights
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded an Oregon bankruptcy court’s order designating recently acquired claims of a secured creditor for bad faith, holding that a bad faith finding requires “something more.” Specifically, the Court found that a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors.Pacific Western Bank, et al. v.