On September 1, 2016, a rehabilitation procedure was commenced in the Seoul Central District Court in respect of Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd (Hanjin). This action followed many months of discussions between Hanjin and its creditors (both local and international) designed to reach a consensual restructuring, as a result of which various creditors had voluntarily agreed to postpone exercising claims. Such agreement was eventually suspended on August 30, 2016 following notice to Hanjin that such creditors were unable to continue their support.

Background

This issue considers the most important provisions of the resolution adopted at the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation (the “SCC”) No. 88, dated 6 December 2013, “On Accrual and Payment of Interest on Creditors’ Claims in Insolvency” (the “Resolution”)1. The Resolution resolves a number of important practical issues and creates new regulations governing, in particular:

On May 14, 2009, Judge Allan Gropper of the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, approved a US$400 million DIP financing package in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) Chapter 11 case. Judge Gropper’s ruling also included approval of GGP’s proposal to use cash flow generated by shopping centers, structured by GGP as bankruptcy remote, special purpose entities, to fund GGP’s ongoing central operations while in bankruptcy.  

Must creditors holding claims denominated in a foreign currency against a debtor in a US bankruptcy case bear the risk of a postpetition decline in the value of the dollar? In In re Global Power Equipment Group Inc.,1 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware says yes, holding that, pursuant to section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, a contested claim denominated in foreign currency must be converted into United States currency as of the petition date instead of a later judgment or breach date.

The Conversion Date Dispute

Equitable mootness is a doctrine grounded in equity pursuant to which an appeals court will dismiss an appeal of a bankruptcy order — even if effective relief could conceivably have been granted — because the implementation of such relief (e.g., the reversal of a bankruptcy court order) would be inequitable to third parties. This doctrine may be applied to achieve the necessary finality of bankruptcy orders and decisions that is required to effectuate the successful, expedient reorganization of debtors in bankruptcy.2

The landmark decision in Design Studio¹ introduces the US rescue financing concept of "roll-ups" to Singapore. This is the first case to consider the appropriateness of the roll-up feature in Singapore and is a pragmatic decision that is guided by a careful balance between the protection of creditors' interests and the rehabilitation of the debtor. This case also clarifies that super priority is not solely for new money financings.

The Design Studio case and the super priority regime

In a decision of interest to construction industry participants, the English Technology and Construction Court confirmed that, in some circumstances, the directors of an insolvent company may be liable in tort for the failings of that company.

It is not uncommon that, after performing works, a contractor finds out that the employer is insolvent. This may have serious consequences as the contractor will be most likely ranked behind other categories of the employer's creditors in any insolvency process. In this situation, what are the contractor’s other options?

Introduction

On 25 July 2016, the White & Case team obtained, at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (the "Supreme Court"), a declaration that a secured creditor has the right to reduce, at its discretion, the amount of a secured claim during receivership and, as a consequence, the right to vote at meetings of the debtor's creditors.

Banking

On 25 October 2013 the Bank of Russia approved Regulation No. 408-P “On the Procedure for Assessing Compliance with the Requirements to Qualification and Business Reputation…”

The Regulation was registered by the Ministry of Justice on 26 December 2013.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar