Dismissal of a bankruptcy—for bad faith filing—is a rarity.

So, how a bankruptcy court grapples with the bad faith issue . . . and ends up dismissing the bankruptcy . . . can provide a lesson for us all.

What follows is a summary of how a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is dismissed when the Court is convinced that the bankruptcy is intended for the benefit of a non-debtor . . . and not for the benefit of the debtor or its creditors.

Many businesses continue to experience unprecedented pressure on their cash flow given, among other things, the continued fall-out from the global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the cost of living crisis, rising interest rates, the end of cheap debt and the expected global downturn.

To mitigate their exposure to personal liability, it's important that directors of insolvent companies or companies in the zone of insolvency comply with their duties to act in the best interests of the company as a whole. This includes the interests of creditors as a whole.

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that "setting aside" or replacing the board is not a requirement to qualify as a de facto director. De facto directors are not required to manage the company instead of, and to the exclusion of, the formal directors.

Background

Under Dutch law, as a matter of principle, only the company (ie a Dutch B.V. or N.V.) is liable for its debts. The directors of the company are in principle not liable.

Every secured lender hates to hear it: Yet another statutory scheme could potentially cause the lender to lose its first priority security interest in certain collateral. While the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) has been around since 1930, it is often forgotten or overlooked by many lenders. However, to the extent that a lender's collateral includes perishable agricultural commodities, such as when the borrower is a restaurant or grocery store, PACA can present significant risks for a lender.

PACA Basics

In the latest ground breaking decision in Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid to rest a long-standing debate on the vexing question concerning the impact, if any, exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) have on the presentation of bankruptcy petitions.

The High Court has handed down the most significant decision on restructuring plans since Virgin Active in 2021, applying cross-class cram down to an ad hoc group of dissenting noteholders (the AHG).

Background

Introduction

In a recent article we considered the nature and extent of directors’ duties to take into account the interests of a company’s creditors when a company is in financial difficulty. A recent High Court decision (Mitchell & Krys v Al Jaber & ors [2023] EWHC 364 (Ch)) considered the issue of directors’ duties in the subsequent situation where a company has entered liquidation. Whilst the relevant company was based in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), the case includes analysis of the position in English law.

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.

Highlights

The Supreme Court held Section 363(m) is only a “statutory limitation” to accessing appellate relief in disputed bankruptcy sales that requires parties to take certain procedural steps to be effective

The Supreme Court also addressed mootness arguments and held that as long as parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of an appeal, the appeal should remain alive

The ruling provides insight as to how the Supreme Court may tackle the controversial doctrine of “equitable mootness”

In the recent case of MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v Adrian Sia Koon Leng [2023] 3 CLJ 191 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision in, among others, dismissing the Appellant’s application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement made pursuant to section 366(4) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”).

Background Facts