Introduction

Carey Olsen’s restructuring and insolvency team has succeeded in applying to the Royal Court for the restoration of K2 Insurance Limited (“K2”), a liquidated and dissolved company, enabling the company to subsequently recover a substantial asset. Advocate David Jones and Associate Harry Stirk acted for Ian Damarell of BDO Limited, the liquidator of K2.

The Facts

On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.¹

Background

This article focuses on the judgments delivered in June and October 2014 by the Guernsey Court  of Appeal in the long-running Tchenguiz litigation [Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited and Another v Glenalla Properties Limited and Others]. The litigation concerned the liabilities of a trustee to creditors in circumstances where the creditor claims far outweighed the value of the trust fund.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.¹ Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and

A consultation process to update the insolvency laws and practices in Guernsey has been launched by a government department in the island with businesses, industry bodies, lawyers and insolvency practitioners being invited to respond to the process before 31 December 2014. 

David Jones a restructuring and insolvency expert from Carey Olsen was invited to participate as part of the Commerce and Employment Department’s working party that reviewed the laws which raise a number of key areas for change.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order requiring a real estate lender, First National Bank (the “Lender”), to refund certain mortgage payments it received from Protective Health Management (the “Debtor”), an affiliate of its borrower.¹   Because  the mortgage payments constituted actual fraudulent transfers, the Fifth Circuit held that the Lender could retain the payments only to the extent of  the value of the Debtor’s continued use of the property.²&

Another bankruptcy court—this time in New York—has weighed in on the issue of whether “make whole” provisions are enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al. (a/k/a Momentive Performance Materials).

As the wave of litigation spawned by the 2008 financial crisis begins to ebb, insurance-coverage litigation arising out of the credit crisis continues unabated. Financial institutions have successfully pursued insurance coverage for many credit-crisis claims under directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies that they purchased to protect themselves against wrongful-act claims brought by their customers, but in response, some insurers continue to raise inapplicable exclusions in an attempt to diminish or limit coverage for their policyholders.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) issued an opinion limiting the ability of a “loan to own” secured creditor to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of the debtors’ assets.¹ The Court focused on the fact that the creditor’s conduct interfered with the sale process and was motivated by its desire to “own the Debtors’ business” rather than to have its d

WHAT IS FATCA?