The Court of Appeal has, in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International), comprehensively considered the contours of a director’s duty to consider the interest of creditors in certain circumstances (Creditor Duty). In this important decision, the apex court examined when the Creditor Duty first becomes engaged as well as the nature, scope and content of the duty.

Hector Robinson KC

Partner | Cayman Islands

Justine Lau

Partner | Hong Kong

Nicholas Fox

Partner | Cayman Islands

Peter Hayden

Partner | Cayman Islands

Simon Dickson

Partner | Cayman Islands

Guide

This guide examines what a creditor needs to know about liquidating an insolvent Cayman company under the Cayman Companies Act (2020 Revision) and the Companies Winding Up Rules, 2018.

The IBBI Working Group on Group Insolvency (under the chairmanship of UK Sinha) and the MCA Cross Border Insolvency Rules/Regulations Committee having submitted their reports (collectively “Reports”) had recommended the introduction of a framework governing the resolution of enterprise groups under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) in September 2019 and December 2021 respectively.

The High Court has found the former directors of collapsed retail chain BHS liable for wrongful trading, misfeasant trading and individual acts of misfeasance.

Although overall quantum is yet to be decided, this has been widely reported as the largest wrongful trading award the courts have made since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Op 27 mei 2024 is het Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement in internetconsultatie gegaan (de WOVOF). De WOVOF beoogt de werknemersbescherming bij faillissement te vergroten, met name in geval van een doorstart. De WOVOF introduceert onder andere een verplichting voor de doorstarter om (in beginsel) alle werknemers uit de failliete onderneming over te nemen. Deze en andere maatregelen worden in dit nieuwsbericht nader toegelicht. 

Huidige regeling en aanleiding WOVOF

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of reorganization on the basis that its non-consensual third-party releases were not permissible. It held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the inclusion of a release in a plan that effectively seeks to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants. The decision prohibits an approach to global resolution of mass tort litigations that has been utilized in numerous cases over the last 40 years.

Takeaways

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases). The decision in Harrington v.

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.

At the bottom of the stack in investment fund structures, there are generally “real” assets—things like equity interests in portfolio companies, mortgage loans, commercial receivables, maybe even bricks and mortar. Fund finance transactions, though, are by design crafted to be at several levels removed from such underlying assets. With such ultimate assets remote from the transaction, it may seem to fund finance practitioners that concerns about changes in the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) relating to the nature of collateral assets are just as remote.