After Energy Future Holdings (EFH), maybe not so much. The size of the break-up fee approved by the bankruptcy court in EFH was undoubtedly large by any account – US$275 million. But it was approved following all necessary filings, notice and hearings. All parties and counsel involved were highly sophisticated and experienced. The court that approved the fee was the Delaware bankruptcy court, by all accounts one of the most experienced and sophisticated bankruptcy courts in the nation. And there wasn’t even a hint of fraud, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts.

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.

In order to prevent the expense of annual 2019 government registration fees, an appointed liquidator will be required to hold the final general meeting for a company or file the final dissolution notice for an exempted limited partnership on or before 31 January 2019.

As annual BVI Registry fees are payable by 30 November for those BVI companies that were incorporated or registered in the second half of the year, it is time to start planning the liquidation of those entities that have reached the end of their life cycle, to ensure that unnecessary Registry fees are not incurred.

In appointing restructuring provisional liquidators ("RPLs") to the Cayman Islands incorporated company, CW Group Holdings Limited ("CW"), in the face of opposition from a creditor seeking a remedy that may have led to CW's liquidation, the Cayman Islands court has reinforced its reputation in (i) putting company rescue first and (ii) seeking to ensure that returns to creditors are maximised. A significant step has also been taken in applying a more commercial and pragmatic reality to the question of officeholder independence.

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 Ctrip Investment Holding Ltd v eHi Car Services Limited the Cayman Islands Court delivered a warning to shareholders seeking to use the winding up jurisdiction to advance their own individual commercial interests.

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