1.1 The overriding objective

(1) The overriding objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

(2) Dealing justly with the case includes –

(a) ensuring, so far as is practicable, that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the –

(i) amount of money involved;

(ii) importance of the case;

(iii) complexity of the issues; and (iv) financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously; and

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a contrary trial court ruling and joined with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in holding that a Chapter 13 trustee is not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.

A copy of the opinion in Evans v. McCallister (In re Evans) is available at: Link to Opinion.

On 8 March 2023, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands appointed Joint Provisional Liquidators (“JPLs”) over Atom Holdings (the “Company”), a Cayman incorporated holding company for the Atom Group, which operated a cryptocurrency exchange via an online platform known as AAX (Atom Asset Exchange).

By means of a category two Public Trustee v Cooper application, in which Jeffrey Elkinson and Britt Smith of Conyers, led by Brian Green KC, acted for the successful plaintiffs, the first plaintiff as trustee, and the second plaintiff as protector, of three family trusts¹ sought to give effect to a 2018 settlement agreement reached between all of the adult beneficiaries concerning the collective assets in the trusts.

These continue to be challenging times and we recognize that the need for cross-border advice on insolvency and restructuring matters may be required at short notice. Conyers’ attorneys are insolvency and restructuring experts. We are well-equipped to advise at all stages where financial stability becomes an issue and innovative solutions are required.

The Complications Involved with Cross-Border Restructuring

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that, at a minimum, a substantial change in circumstances is required to justify modification of a bankruptcy plan under Section 1229.

The Eighth Circuit BAP also determined that the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the debtors met their burden of showing an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, despite multiple changes by the debtor, nor was the bankruptcy court’s finding that the fourth modified plan was feasible and confirmable.

On 21 April 2023, the English High Court handed down its written reasons for sanctioning the Adler Group restructuring plan proposed under the new Part 26A regime of the UK’s Companies Act 2006, which raised questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, cross-class cram downs, pari passu issues and competing valuations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.

In the recent decision of Greig William Alexander Mitchell & Ors v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber & Ors[2023] EWHC 364 (Ch), the English High Court was required to consider the question of what duties (if any) a director owes to a BVI company post-liquidation; in particular in light of section 175(1)(b) of the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 (hereinafter, the Act) which expressly provides that upon liquidation “the directors and other officers of the company remain in office, but they cease to have any powers, functions or duties