On August 11, a United States bankruptcy judge denied motions to dismiss the Chapter 11 cases of 21 special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiaries (the “Subject Debtors”) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”). A final order denying the motions was entered on August 28. The decision raises a number of issues, primarily with respect to the role of independent managers, that are of particular interest to the commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) industry.
Lessons from the GGP Cases
PETER J. SOLOMON COMPANY, L.P., v. ONEIDA, LTD., CASE NO. 09-CIV-2229, 2010 WL 234827 (S.D.N.Y. JAN. 22, 2010)
A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.
Introduction
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has recently ruled In the Matter of Formation Group (Cayman) Fund I, LP (Formation) 1 that it is possible to bring a just and equitable petition to wind-up an exempted limited partnership (ELP) in its own name, as opposed to that of the general partner (GP). This decision contradicts aspects of Justice Parker's judgment In The Matter of Padma Fund LP (Padma). 2 In this update, we consider these conflicting first instance decisions.
In The Matter of Padma Fund L.P. [FSD 201 of 2021] (RJP), the Cayman Grand Court held that the Cayman Court does not have jurisdiction to order the winding up of a Cayman exempted limited partnership (“ELP”) on the basis of a creditor’s petition for the winding up of the ELP. The Court ruled that the correct procedure for a creditor to follow is to commence proceedings against the general partner of the ELP for an unpaid debt.
Voluntary liquidations generally
As the conclusion of 2019 approaches, clients should give some thought to whether or not they have Cayman entities which they are no longer using and wish to liquidate prior to the end of 2019 in order to, among other things, avoid annual government registration fees due in January 2020. A voluntary liquidator of a Cayman company or exempted limited partnership (ELP) is required to hold the final general meeting for that company or file the final dissolution notice for that ELP on or before 31 January 2020.
Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits the subordination of certain claims to all claims or interests senior or equal to the security on which the claim is based. A recent Fifth Circuit opinion delineates the scope of mandatory subordination under Section 510(b).
In 2007, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an important ruling for creditors of insolvent corporations. It held that such creditors had standing to assert derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against directors of an insolvent corporation.1 But, as the Delaware Court of Chancery recently made clear, there is a big difference between Delaware limited liability companies (LLCs) and their corporate cousins.
The summer months are upon us, and developments in insolvency law and practice continue apace. Since our Spring issue the courts have pronounced in a number of interesting cases. At the time of writing, the World Cup is underway – it would perhaps be remiss not to have some football flavour in this article, and so some observations on the plight of Portsmouth FC are appropriate (though saved till the end).
Successive notices of intention to appoint administrators: more than one moratorium?