While it had been clear for most of the recent economic downturn that the 24% of Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE) listed companies incorporated in Bermuda may have recourse to the court in their place of incorporation to secure an adjournment or stay of an actual or anticipated winding up petition in Hong Kong, it is now equally clear that Cayman incorporated companies (which represent another 50% of the HKSE) will have similar access to restructuring assistance.

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”¹ Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation² breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.

Executive Summary

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.

This briefing note provides an overview of some of the commercial reasons for and the technical legal requirements of a company wishing to acquire its own shares (also referred to as “share buy-backs”).

OVERVIEW

On 9 December 2020, the UK government gave businesses muchneeded breathing space with an extension of insolvency measures. 

The Insolvency and Companies Court in London handed down judgment on Monday, 19 October 2020 rejecting a shareholder challenge to the 2017 restructuring of Paragon Offshore plc (in liquidation) (the "Company").

The judgment gives helpful guidance on the approach taken by insolvency courts to reviewing, rescinding or varying their orders under rule 12.59 of The Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

Statutory demands are often conflated with other debt recovery mechanisms available to creditors. Whilst a statutory demand may, in certain circumstances, be a useful tool in the debt recovery kit, its primary function is to establish whether a company can pay its debts as they fall due i.e. whether it satisfies the “cash flow test”.

In Guernsey, a company must pass both the cash flow and balance sheet solvency tests to meet the definition of solvency.

Today the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced that certain temporary measures put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June, will be extended.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 were laid before the UK Parliament today and will come into force on 29 September 2020. Pursuant to these regulations, statutory demands and winding-up petitions will continue to be restricted until 31 December 2020.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.