As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?

New requirements brought in during the Covid-19 pandemic have added to the potential procedural pitfalls facing creditors seeking a winding up order in recent months. They have also led to quite a lot of adjourned hearings and delays.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Deputy ICCJ Schaffer has dismissed an application brought by the Respondents to a claim brought by the Joint Liquidators of BHS Group Ltd for wrongful trading. The failure to plead the relevant quantum of the claim was not a deficiency which merited strike-out.

Re BHS Group Ltd [2021] EWHC 3501 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

A recent Fifth Circuit decision released on December 7 sends a clear message to those seeking to challenge a trustee’s litigation funding agreement: you’d better be on solid ground when it comes to “standing.”

In the five-page opinion authored by Judge Jacques L. Weiner, Jr., the court found that the appellant-debtor in In re Dean lacked standing to challenge a funding agreement approved by a Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Fifth Circuit found that the debtor was not “directly, adversely, and financially impacted” by the funding agreement or the bankruptcy court’s order.

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

We are (or were!) emerging from nearly two years of restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which forced people to stay at home and businesses to close causing shock waves throughout the economy. The government put in place the package of emergency measures and support which we are now all too familiar with. However, the question always lingered, what next? What about when the money runs out?

This appeal concerned (inter alia) whether an application for an order for sale made under s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA 1986’) should be made by an application notice issued under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (‘IR 2016) or by a Part 8 Claim Form issued under the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).

Factual Background

Introduction

In Re Bronia, ICC Judge Burton had to consider whether a director could retrospectively re-characterise a director’s loan as ‘drawings’ in order to release the director from liability to the company. ICC Judge Burton concluded that such an approach was impermissible.

Facts

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers: