Facts
In a September 18, 2015 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying administrative claim treatment to Hudson Energy Services, LLC (“Hudson”) for its retail sales of electricity to the debtor.1 The decision does not address any “safe-harbor” or forward contract issues, but is among a number of decisions providing for inconsistent treatment of such sales.
In a recent decision related to the SemCrude bankruptcy, the federal district court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings on the efficacy of certain common risk-mitigation tools used in the energy trading and marketing business – namely product payment netting and cross-product setup upon liquidation and closeout. The decision comes amid long-running challenges from producers who had sold product to the SemGroup entities on credit.
The English High Court in London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 has held that legal advice taken in relation to various transactions which the claimant alleged had been made at an undervalue was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the legal advice was to structure the transactions in order to allow the client to avoid or reduce the costs of a residential care home.
Facts
The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.
Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.
Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.
The Bill introduces key changes to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. These include a new provision allowing for an independent review by the Circuit Court, if creditors such as the mortgage lender refuse a borrower’s proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement to deal with unsustainable debts which include a mortgage on the borrower’s home.
On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.
In the Matter of J.D Brian Limited (In Liquidation) T/A East Coast Print and Publicity, In the Matter of J.D. Brian Motors Limited (In Liquidation) T/A Belgard Motors and In the Matter of East Coast Car Parts Limited (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 (the Companies)
The EBA updated its Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting of liquidity coverage ratios (LCR) for EU credit institutions. The updated ITS includes new templates and instructions for credit institutions so as to ensure compliance with the European Commission's Delegated Act adopted in October 2014. In addition the ITS outline all the necessary steps needed for the calculation of the ratio. The amended ITS are only applicable to credit institutions and not to investment firms and will only become applicable following publication in the EU Official Journal.
SwissMarine Corporation Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm)
The Commercial Court has recently refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to SwissMarine Corporation Limited (SwissMarine) to restrain proceedings brought by O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (OW) against SwissMarine in Denmark.