Hong Kong’s restructuring scene is one of the most cross-border in the world, with three-quarters of its listed companies incorporated offshore and most restructurings having a mainland China connection. But the territory still lacks a statutory regime for cross-border recognition – as recently brought into focus in the restructuring of Singaporean engineering company CW Group. What does this mean for international insolvencies in the region?

Contrary to the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling, the District Court concluded that California's liquidated damages statute does not apply to the default interest rate provision.

EY's Hunter Kelly and Alan Hudson have been appointed administrators over UK construction services company Interserve, hours after it failed to secure shareholder approval for a restructuring plan.  

Kelly and Hudson were appointed over Interserve Plc, the holding company for the Interserve Group, on 15 March after the plan failed to win approval at a shareholders' general meeting earlier the same day. 

This is a favorable decision for commercial secured lenders. Although the ruling is not controlling on other bankruptcy courts as it is a trial court level ruling, courts may certainly consider it when presented with similar issues.

In In re 1111 Myrtle Avenue Group, LLC (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019), a New York bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision of 7 percent was enforceable and not a penalty against a debtor, which retained significant equity postbankruptcy.

Background

Singapore’s new restrictions on ipso facto clauses are welcome news to the local restructuring community, and a strong step towards establishing it as one of the region’s premier restructuring hubs. But how will these restrictions affect innocent counterparties and existing commercial contracts, ask partner Guan Feng Chen and associate Jonathan Tang at Morgan Lewis Stamford?

New restrictions on ipso facto clauses

The Revel decision provides a cautionary tale for purchasers under Section 363.

In re Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC, 2018 Westlaw 3244502 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.), a California bankruptcy court held that a default interest rate provision was an unenforceable penalty under applicable California law because, among other things, the applicable loan agreements did not contain an estimate of the probable costs to the lender resulting from the debtor’s default.

Background

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.

In Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries (In re BFW Liquidation), 899 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that a liability for an allegedly preferential transfer may be reduced by the amount of new value given, regardless of whether that new value has already been repaid by the debtor before its bankruptcy filing.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling,[1] resolving a circuit split on the issue of whether a debtor’s statement about a single asset constitutes “a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).