The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings. Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles. Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.

Although political and economic uncertainties tempered corporate activity somewhat in 2016, the trends and fundamentals that have the potential to drive transactions remain in place in 2017.

Capital Markets

The last decade has exposed the bankruptcy courts across the globe to a large volume of international work, and with that experience in mind, the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) held its inaugural meeting in Singapore in late 2016. Its intent was to formulate a set of guidelines (theGuidelines) that would promote cooperation between Courts. Sitting alongside common law and legislative cross-border provisions, the Guidelines are a practical code to enhance some of the most successful cross-border initiatives of recent years.

Am 31. August 2016 hatte die weltweit siebtgrösste Container-Liner Reederei, Hanjin Shipping Co.Ltd. (nachfolgend Hanjin), in Korea Gläubigerschutz beantragt. Die Hoffnungen, dem koreanischen Gericht einen Sanierungsplan vorlegen zu können, haben sich in der Folge nicht ganz unerwartet rasch zerschlagen. Der Seoul Center District Court hat am 2. Februar 2017 entschieden, am 17. Februar 2017 über Hanjin Shipping Co.Ltd definitiv den Konkurs zu eröffnen[1].

Since the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd., so many articles have been written about how it happened, why it happened, and what can be learned from this tragedy. When Hanjin Shipping, once the 7th largest container carrier in the world and the 4th largest container carriers in the transpacific (Asia – US & Canada) trade, filed for bankruptcy, few believed that a “too big to fail” organization like Hanjin would not be given a government bail-out. So, naturally, no one really appreciated the kind of disruption and losses that would subsequently affect the global supply chain.

Globalization is a hot topic these days. It should come as no surprise, then, that the challenges that come with having a global enterprise in financial distress can be complex. The panelists at the INSOL breakout session, Group next (or not): continuing challenges in the treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency, explored what happens when a global organization with businesses in multiple jurisdictions around the world tries to implement a cohesive and coordinated restructuring.

Returns to creditors from litigation against associates of the business are often a lucrative way of getting funds into an administration after a corporate failure. Claims are often made against banks, lawyers and accountants associated with the failure. In some cases, those claims may involve chasing other parties for the proceeds of a fraud. Often these claims provide a greater return than chasing down any remaining assets.

The state of insolvency office holder (“IOH”) regulation worldwide is a matter of some concern to the international bodies active in the insolvency field. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development held a conference on 7 November 2014 to disseminate the findings of a two-year project into the IOH regulatory environment in its client group, of which 27 out of 35 were the subject of an assessment.

British law firm DWL LLP has acquired insurance specialist Triton Global for the bargain basement price of 30% of its value.  The deal was struck just days before HM Revenue & Customs attempted to wind the firm up over unpaid tax of £1.3m.  Triton Global was a competitor of DWL, but cash flow difficulties left it unable to cover its working capital requirements and service creditor debt.  The deal sees DWL pay £1.1m for Triton Global, with unsecured creditors set to receive less than 4p to the pound.  Of the purchase price, only £174,000 is allocated to the approxima