A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Walker County Hospital Corporation serves as an important reminder to clients that are purchasing or renewing directors and officers (“D&O”) insurance coverage that the “Insured versus Insured” exclusion must contain the broadest possible exceptions for claims brought against directors and officers following a bankruptcy filing. Without the specific policy language, current and former directors and officers may be exposed to personal liability.
One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In a significant recent judgment, the ADGM Court has clarified that it has jurisdiction to hear an action for fraudulent trading against the former directors of an onshore UAE company.
By way of background, NMC Healthcare LTD (NMC), and its various subsidiaries, were incorporated in onshore UAE. On 17 September 2020, NMC was redomiciled as an ADGM company. Shortly thereafter, on 27 September 2020, NMC was put into administration pursuant to the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 and joint administrators (the Joint Administrators) appointed.
Since the pandemic, during which insolvency rates were low due to Government measures, there has been a considerable rise in insolvencies in the UK and many other jurisdictions. High interest rates have significantly increased the cost of borrowing and many companies are saddled with mountains of debt that was taken out in better times and which are now difficult to repay. In addition, high inflation and energy costs, lower consumer confidence and volatile supply chains have all contributed to making the last few years very difficult for businesses.
The adage ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’ rings true for the 831 company directors disqualified in 2023/24 for abusing the Covid financial support scheme.
The Superior Court of Quebec rules in favor of Export Development Canada (“EDC”) and enforces a "[unequivocal]" Waiver against the surety who signed it in the context of a loan guarantee granted to the RBC.
Relevant Facts
The Kingdom introduced its first ever bankruptcy law in 2018 which has created a foundation for a business rescue culture in Saudi Arabia. Companies undergoing financial difficulties are equipped with the tools that allow them to either trade out of a difficult period or liquidate the business in a manner which does not leave creditors out of pocket. More recently, to complement the existing insolvency regime, rules of cross-border bankruptcy proceedings came into effect on 16 December 2022 (“Rules”).
简介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。
案情
上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。
于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。
答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。
Introduction
In the latest judgment handed down by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified the approach to winding up and bankruptcy petitions where the agreement from which the disputed petition debt arose contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (“EJC”).
Facts