No extraterritorial application for Bankruptcy Code rules for recovering avoided transfers. A US District Court held that Bankruptcy Code Section 550(a), which allows a trustee to recover “property transferred to the extent that a transfer is avoided” under one of the Bankruptcy Code avoidance provisions, does not apply extraterritorially. The Securities Investor Protection Act trustee for Madoff securities sought to use Section 550(a) to recover assets transferred by foreign feeder funds abroad to their foreign customers.

In an important recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal, Davis LLP successfully represented its clients Century McMynn Leasing Partnership and GE Finance in Re Perimeter Transportation Ltd., 2010 BCCA 509.

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented disruptions across the global economy, perhaps most severely in the retail sector. Shelter-in-place orders, government-mandated closures and other restrictions drastically reduced or entirely wiped out revenue streams, resulting in an increased number of bankruptcy filings by retail debtors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020, contains a range of significant reforms, not least of which is the introduction of a new Restructuring Plan process dubbed the Super Scheme. The first such Restructuring Plan, used in the financial restructuring of Virgin Atlantic Airways (VAA), was sanctioned by the High Court on 2 September 2020 representing a new landmark in the UK restructuring landscape.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduces a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies. The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Bill and intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on in 2018 and have now been fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Navigating the road between regulatory compliance and business rescue

When dealing with a goods vehicle operator in an insolvency context:

In its recent decision Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a structured dismissal of a chapter 11 case that provides for distributions that fail to follow the standard priority rules, unless the affected creditors consent to such treatment.

In a case of first impression, DLA Piper argued before the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that a consent provision in a Delaware LLC operating agreement effectively granting a creditor a veto right over a debtor’s decision to file for bankruptcy was void because it was contrary to federal public policy.

With APCOA Parking, the English High Court sets out the latest line of authority in the increasing use of schemes of arrangement by foreign companies.

This case, APCOA Parking (UK) Limited & Ors [2014] EWHC 997 (Ch), presents two novel aspects:

A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?

Facts: