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 news in January of this year that the government planned to increase the bankruptcy petition threshold to £5,000 (subject to parliamentary scrutiny) from 1 October was greeted with mixed reaction. On the one hand, it was welcomed in that the threshold of £750 which had been in place since 1986 was wildly out of date.
Over the past 15 years or so, one of the most commonly recurring themes in my practice has been advising both insolvency practitioners and directors on the prospects of legal proceedings being pursued for breach of director duties and/or wrongful trading. Very often the two claims are put together for the purposes of an actual or threatened claim, and very often sitting behind the scenes as well is a possible investigation and/or claim that one or more directors should be disqualified.
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.
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.
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.
Re Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 1500 (Ch)
The Applicants had entered into a pool agreement and time charter with Pan Ocean, both of which were governed by English law and provided for London arbitration. The agreements were terminated, and the Applicants sought damages. Pan Ocean went into rehabilitation in Korean, and the Applicants submitted claims which were rejected by the administrator. The Korean court confirmed that rejection. The Applicants lodged an objection to the court’s decision, and the proceedings were ongoing in Korea.
Krol v. Key Bank National Association, et al. (In re MCK Millenium Centre Parking, LLC), Adv. No. 14-00392 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2015)
Most people who deal in property regularly will be very aware of the risk of acquiring a property for less than its true value if it turns out that the seller falls into some sort of insolvent procedure after the sale. This “undervalue” concern will often be front of mind if it is known that the seller is in a distressed situation, e.g. their lender is threatening to take possession. In some cases the ‘look back period’ for an insolvency practitioner taking office over an insolvent seller’s affairs can be as long as 5 years.