This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday, 22 February.

In the five years to November 2017, AUD1.8 billion of GST revenue was written-off due to phoenixing – where companies are stripped of assets and liquidated, then restarted under a different name leaving creditors out of pocket.

It is not uncommon to see that the law governing a loan document is different from that of the debtor company’s place of incorporation. Can the rights of the lender be altered by a restructuring plan sanctioned in the latter? The English court said “no” in a recent case1, applying the longstanding Gibbs rule that also applies under Hong Kong law.

Background

The Ninth Circuit recently limited the availability of diversity jurisdiction for certain cases with claims involving mortgage loan modifications. Specifically, in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that, where the plaintiff-borrower “seeks only a temporary stay of foreclosure pending review of a loan modification application … the value of the property or amount of indebtedness are not the amounts in controversy.” — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 6601872, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017).

In, In re: Geneius Biotechnology, Inc., C.A. No. 2017-0297-TMR (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a minority stockholder’s petition for the appointment of a neutral third-party receiver under Section 291 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) because the petitioner minority stockholder failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Geneius Biotechnology, Inc. (“Geneius”) was insolvent. The court held that Section 291 actions are not to be used as a method of resolving business strategy disputes between stockholders and management.

The Safe Harbour reforms that became law on 19 September 2017 aim to create a better environment for the effective corporate rescue of distressed companies.

Insurance claims represent assets in insolvency which may be capable of realisation or assignment by an insolvency practitioner (IP). If properly managed, such claims can prove to be a significant source of recovery. However, in practice, the benefits of insurance are often lost for a variety of reasons, including:

This article was first published by INSOL International in December 2017.

In today’s chapter 11 practice, third party releases are ubiquitous. A staple of the largest and most complex cases for years, plan provisions releasing and enjoining claims against non-debtors, particularly officers and directors, are now common place in most business reorganizations. While case law permits a bankruptcy court to enjoin claims against non-debtors in limited, fact-specific circumstances, plan proponents frequently achieve far broader releases by creditor consent. In re SunEdison, Inc.

In a first in Hong Kong, the Companies Court has recently sanctioned a creditors' scheme of arrangement proposed by a Bermuda-incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company by approving an alternative process pursued by the company and its provisional liquidators so as to overcome the constraints in Re Legend International Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192; that in Hong Kong, provisional liquidators cannot be appointed for the sole purpose of restructuring a company.

In B.E. Capital Management Fund LP v. Fund.Com Inc., C.A. No. 12843-VCL (Del. Ch. October 4, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery denied an appeal from a receiver’s decision disallowing a claim for breach of contract against a company in receivership. The Court held that the appropriate standard of review for an appeal of a receiver’s decision was de novo as to both law and facts, and in particular, that the Court had discretion to consider additional evidence not presented on record to the receiver.