On 5 October 2022 the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its “momentous” decision in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others1. The case addresses issues of ‘‘considerable practical importance to the management of companies’’, in particular directors’ duties during insolvency or the onset of insolvency.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code's enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
Preferences
“Under the long-standing ‘solvent-debtor exception,’ plaintiffs [unsecured trade creditors] possess an equitable right to receive post-petition interest at the contractual or default state law rate, subject to any other equitable considerations, before [the debtor] collects surplus value from the bankruptcy estate,” held the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2022. In re PG&E Corporation, 2022 WL 3712498, *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (2-1).
Cayman Islands companies have dominated the restructuring news cycle of late for a variety of reasons, including recent judicial commentary as to the effect of obtaining recognition under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
The defendant "was a `mere conduit' of [a] fraudulent transfer and cannot be liable to the bankruptcy estate for funds she never knew about," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 5, 2022. In re BICOM N.Y., LLC, 2022 WL 1419997 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022). Affirming the lower courts' granting of summary judgement to the defendant transferee, the court refused to "equate ...
Conyers partner Jonathon Milne and associate Rowana-Kay Campbell in the Cayman Islands, and partner Anna Lin in Hong Kong, explain why the new Cayman restructuring regime is likely to be a welcome addition to the legislative landscape for prudent directors – particularly in light of current macro-economic conditions and the difficulties many companies are facing.
A much-anticipated corporate restructuring regime will be enacted in the Cayman Islands later this year through amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court's approved retention of the debtor's counsel ("S") when that "law firm dropped an existing client to avoid conflicts that would prevent it from taking on a more lucrative client [i.e., the debtor]." In re Boy Scouts of America, 2022 WL 1634643, *7 (3d Cir. May 24, 2022) (BSA). According to the court, there were "not enough facts to put [the so-called "hot potato" doctrine] into play" and disqualify S under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id.
开曼群岛法例中的新设重组制度，大有可能受到一众审慎董事垂青 – 尤其鉴于许多公司正面对种种宏观经济状况及困难。且看康德明开曼群岛合伙人 Jonathon Milne、律师 Rowana-Kay Campbell 及香港合伙人林宛萱如何剖析其原因。
开曼群岛《公司法》第 V 部将于今年修订，当中所订立的公司重组制度，可谓万众期待。
新制度将赋予董事一项新增法定权力，董事可藉此在相关公司陷入财政困难并有意向债权人提出还款方案时，向开曼群岛法院提出呈请以委任具适合资格的重组主任。
对于在责任上须要考虑债权人利益的董事而言，上述新增权力意义重大。
本文将参照最新典据，探讨董事有何责任须考虑债权人利益，以及该等责任会因何种情况而触发。
关于新制度下的其他生效变更，请见《新设重组主任制度概览》一文。
On 24 June 2022, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris (of the High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) granted assistance to Cayman Islands appointed Joint Provisional Liquidators (the “JPLs”) of Seahawk China Dynamic Fund, a solvent company incorporated in the Cayman Islands (the “Company”). Harris J ruled that the JPLs have the power to act as agents of the Company in Hong Kong. Reasons were delivered on 4 July 2022.