In trotting a path out of Chapter 11, debtors in most cases will need to engage various key stakeholders, some of whom are not entitled to a distribution in the bankruptcy. As a form of remuneration, non-debtors may insist on receiving a release of liability - not only from claims belonging to the debtor, but also the claims of third-parties - in exchange for their support and contribution to the case.

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a framework through which representatives of foreign insolvency proceedings can commence ancillary U.S. proceedings and obtain relief from U.S. courts in aid of foreign restructurings. For a foreign insolvency proceeding to be recognized by a U.S. bankruptcy court under Chapter 15, the proceeding must, among other things, involve a “debtor” whose assets or affairs are subject to the control of the foreign court.

Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 prohibits the sale of a security unless a registration statement is in effect. This prohibition on the sale of unregistered securities does not apply to exempt transactions. One such exemption is found in the Bankruptcy Code — section 1145 provides that securities issued under a plan of reorganization may be exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. For debtors, the recent decision of Golden v. Mentor Capital, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153415 (D. Ut. Sept.

In order to file for bankruptcy, a corporate entity must be legally authorized to do so. Whether the bankruptcy petition has been duly authorized is governed by state law and often depends on the entity’s governance documents. If a petition has not been properly authorized, creditors may seek its dismissal.

In a ground-breaking decision for the Cayman Islands as a restructuring centre, the Cayman Islands court has handed down judgment sanctioning four highly complex inter-linked schemes of arrangement.

The schemes result in the compromise of US$3.69 billion of New York law governed debt for the Cayman Islands registered parent of the Ocean Rig group and three of its Marshall Islands incorporated subsidiaries.

In a decision that will reassure investors in Cayman Islands investment funds and other vehicles, the Grand Court has shown its willingness to facilitate the investigation of legitimate concerns raised during a voluntary liquidation.1

The decision is the first written ruling on the Court's power to defer the dissolution of a Cayman Islands company in voluntary liquidation under section 151(3) of the Companies Law and also considers the Court's power to bring a voluntary liquidation under the Court's supervision in the context of an investigation into possible wrongdoing.

U.S. Bankruptcy Rule 9019 provides that on a motion brought by a trustee (and thus a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession as well) the court may approve a settlement. The prevailing view is that due to the court’s approval requirement, pre-court approval settlement agreements are enforceable by the debtor but not against the debtor. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently disagreed. It held that the statutory approval requirement is not an opportunity for the debtor to repudiate the settlement.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act in the U.S. requires that employers give sixty days’ notice to its employees before effecting a mass layoff.

The timing of the commencement of the voluntary liquidation of a Cayman Islands company was often driven primarily by the desire to avoid incurring the following year’s annual government fees. To avoid those fees, the liquidation had to commence by December, with the final meeting being held before the end of January. This timetable allowed for an effective dissolution date into the next calendar year, while still avoiding the government fees for that year.

Directors and officers (D&Os) of troubled companies should be highly sensitive to D&O insurance policies with Prior Act Exclusion. While policies with such exclusion may be cheaper, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit raises the spectre that a court may hold a loss to have more than a coincidental causal connection with the officer’s conduct pre-policy period and make the (cheaper) coverage worthless.