Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11 (date of judgment 14 June 2022)

Introduction

Executive Summary 

Where multiple Cayman Islands entities in the same corporate structure become subject to insolvency proceedings (e.g. Cayman Islands master/ feeder fund structures), the Cayman Islands Courts will typically seek to appoint the same liquidators at each level where such entities share similarities in circumstances. Doing so typically aligns with the Overriding Objective of the Court to deal with matters economically and efficiently, and in the context of a liquidation, helps protect the interests of stakeholders in the liquidation. 

In a recent article, we analysed the Court’s powers to summon a person for examination under sections 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).  Those powers may be used by an eligible applicant to gather information from an officer, provisional liquidator or other person about the examinable affairs of an externally-administered corporation.

A fundamental principle of insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is that upon the commencement of a liquidation of a company, a line is drawn in the sand and the assets of an insolvent company should be distributed on a pari passu basis (e.g. each unsecured creditor should share equally in the available assets of the company). While subject to some exceptions (like any good fundamental principle of law), the concept that all unsecured creditors should be on “equal footing” is the basis for a wide array of insolvency legislation and case law.

In a decision approved for publication, addressing the intersection of New Jersey Court Rule 4:5-4 and 11 U.S.C. 524(a), the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that a bankruptcy discharge precluded a creditor from obtaining a judgment of personal liability and debtor’s failure to plead that defense did not waive it. Vadim Chepovetsky and Svetlana Nashtatik v. Louis Civello, Jr. , No. A-0476-21 (App. Div. Jun. 16, 2022).

Since our last blog on this topic, the English court has provided further guidance on certain key issues and novel features relevant to restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement in its recent judgments on Amigo Loans, Smile Telecoms, EDF & Man, Re Safari Holdings (Löwen Play) and Haya. This piece provides an overview of key points from these cases.

Background

As noted in our prior Alerts, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), which became law March 27, 2020, included various COVID-19 pandemic-related bankruptcy relief provisions which sunsetted on Saturday, March 27, 2021, but were extended by the “COVID-19 Bankruptcy Relief Extension Act of 2021” (“2021 Extension Act”) through March 27, 2022. By the President’s June 21, 2022, signature of the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment and Technical Corrections Act (the “BTATC Act”), Pub. L. No. 117-151, ___ Stat.

In a decision rendered on June 6, 2022, Justice Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case Siegel v. Fitzgerald, holding that a statutory increase in United States Trustee’s fees violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause set forth in Article I, § 7, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”1  

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the sale proceeds of a property held in trust can be applied to a beneficiary’s bankruptcy obligations.