- Introduction
Most reading this will know that freezing orders are granted to prohibit defendants from disposing of or dissipating their assets in a way that will prevent the claimant from enforcing any judgment he obtains. If the defendant disobeys, he is at risk of contempt. But the primary purpose of contempt is to punish the defendant. Many claimants will simply be concerned to ensure that the defendant’s money is frozen.
At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No. 57 for 2009 (the Decree).
The Decree is significant in two respects:
On June 15th, the Second Circuit held that district courts may issue anti-litigation injunctions barring bankruptcy filings as part of their broad equitable powers in the context of an SEC receivership. SEC v. Byers. Reuters reported on the involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed by creditors which prompted the district court's anti-litigation order.
On April 26th, the Eleventh Circuit held that the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act prohibits a federal district court from enjoining the FDIC. A trial court had initially imposed a TRO against a failing bank prohibiting it from taking any action with respect to $1 billion worth of mortgage proceeds it held in trust for petitioner, Bank of America, who held legal title. When the FDIC was appointed receiver, the FDIC moved to dissolve the TRO. The trial court refused converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction.
The Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action against several individuals and related investment entities (the Wextrust Entities) who allegedly participated in a Ponzi scheme that purportedly defrauded over 1,000 investors of approximately $255 million.
With the possibility of a major stock brokerage liquidation appearing more likely than it has been in recent periods, the effect of a liquidation on customers and financial counterparties has become of great interest to many of our clients and others.
Title II of the Act, designated "Orderly Liquidation Authority" – effective July 21, 2010 – establishes what is intended to be an orderly liquidation process for "financial companies" whose collapse or potential collapse are determined to constitute a risk to the financial system as a whole. Such systemically significant institutions would be liquidated under these new procedures, rather than being treated under existing bankruptcy laws. (The intent of Act is that most-failing financial companies will continue to be administered under existing bankruptcy laws.)
The Bankruptcy Protector
Given the state of the economy, it will not be a rare occurrence in the short term for a supplier to receive a request to sell and deliver further goods to a purchaser who has filed proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code — and who is already indebted for unpaid pre-filing sales.
The Republic of Argentina returned to global debt markets after a 15-year absence on April 19, 2016, when it sold $16 billion in bonds to fund a series of landmark settlements reached earlier this year with holdout bondholders from the South American nation’s 2005 and 2010 debt restructurings. This latest development in the more than decade-long battle between Argentina and the holdouts—led by hedge funds Aurelius Capital Master Ltd. (“Aurelius”) and NML Capital Ltd.