The landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) decision of Re Guy Lam[1] has generated numerous articles written by practitioners and academics on the interaction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the court’s jurisdiction to wind up or bankrupt a debtor. Following the CFA’s decision, the Guy Lam bankruptcy continued to impact our legal landscape when the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the treatment of the costs and expenses of the bankrupt trustees (for whom TDW acted) in circumstances where the bankruptcy order was overturned in appeal[2].

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been at loggerheads with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on various occasions in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of a distressed entity. Courts and tribunals have passed varying judgments, either giving primacy to the IBC or allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a functionary under the PMLA, to perform its duties irrespective of the ongoing CIRP of a company.

In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.

Background

INSOLVENCY – The bankruptcy division of Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirms the test to determine the existence of a substantial and genuine dispute when setting aside a statutory demand. In this article, we review the recent determinations of the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius (Bankruptcy Division) in which it re-affirmed the tests to determine an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 181 of the Insolvency Act 2009 (‘Insolvency Act’).

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by a Russian trustee in bankruptcy has succeeded in striking out some parts of a defence to a claim that a share transfer was a sham or a transaction defrauding creditors. Other parts of the defence were not, however struck out.

Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The duties of directors in relation to companies in Mauritius are laid out under the Companies Act 2001 (‘Companies Act’) and more specifically under Section 143 which sets out in detail that directors have a duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company on which they are appointed.

On April 22, 2024, in the chapter 11 cases of GOL Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes S.A.

To file bankruptcy in the U.S., a debtor must reside in, have a domicile or a place of business in, or have property in the United States. 11 U.S.C. § 109(a). In cross border chapter 15 cases, courts have considered whether a representative of a foreign debtor must satisfy that jurisdictional test.

Debtor’s Chapter 11 counsel cannot be compensated for services performed after a trustee is appointed and the debtor removed from possession.

• That’s the rule of law in the Fifth Circuit and in a not-for-publication decision of the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

So . . . the question is, what about Subchapter V? Does that same no-compensation rule apply in Subchapter V when the debtor is removed from possession?

Ninth Circuit BAP Opinion

As you know from our prior alerts, creditors of borrowers formed as Delaware LLCs (as opposed to corporations) lack standing under Delaware law to sue directors for breaching fiduciary duties even when, to the surprise of many, the LLC is insolvent. See our prior Alert. The disparity of substantive creditor rights depending entirely on corporate form results from two aspects of Delaware law.