This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

Pacific Exploration & Production Corporation ("the Company"), a Canadian public company who explore and produce natural gas and crude oil with operations focused in Latin America. In April 2016, the Company obtained an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act for the restructuring of the Company.

The English Court granted recognition of Chapter 11 proceedings in relation to a company that was incorporated in the UK but had its centre of main interests ("COMI") in the United States, confirming that the Directors were foreign representatives for the purpose of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations").

The UK is a well-established jurisdiction for cross border insolvencies, both within the EU and the rest of the world. The main piece of EU legislation that governs this area of law is the EC Council Regulation 1346/2000 ("the Insolvency Regulation"). Ultimately, this legislation facilitates the recognition of insolvency proceedings that span multiple jurisdictions. The Insolvency Regulation sets out the correct jurisdiction in cross border situations and, crucially, makes it mandatory for Member States to recognise insolvency proceedings in other EU countries.

An article appearing in the July/August 2014 issue of the Business Restructuring Review discusses a ruling by an Oregon bankruptcy court that held unenforceable a negative covenant in a limited liability company's operating agreement prohibiting the company from filing a bankruptcy petition, among other actions.

In December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor "under this title" to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor's assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize cost and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy. A Texas bankruptcy court recently added to this slim body of jurisprudence. InIn re Buffet Partners, L.P., 2014 BL 207602 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the "Commission") approved a series of amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the "UFTA"), which is currently in force in 43 states (all states except Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia).

NOTABLE BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS OF 2014

ALLOWANCE/DISALLOWANCE/PRIORITY/DISCHARGE OF CLAIMS

The meaning of "unreasonably small capital" in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation is not spelled out in the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, bankruptcy courts have been called upon to fashion their own definitions of the term. Nonetheless, the courts that have considered the issue have mostly settled on some general concepts in fashioning such a definition. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v. Ritchie SG Holdings, LLC (In re SemCrude, LP), 2014 BL 272343 (D. Del. Sept.