Contents
On Dec. 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the Bankruptcy Court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases — namely for the benefit of the Sackler family who owns Purdue. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 7:21-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021).
Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.
In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.
Key Takeaways
In 2005, the United States adopted the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, promulgated by the United Nations Commission on Internal Trade, under chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In so adopting, Congress intended chapter 15 “to be the exclusive door to ancillary assistance to foreign proceedings.” H.R.Rep. No. 109–31, at 110–11 (2005). Notwithstanding the express congressional intent, not all courts have required chapter 15 relief as a prerequisite to seeking relief in a pending civil litigation against a debtor.
On December 16, 2021, U.S.
A liquidator is usually involved at the end of a company’s life cycle. The role of a liquidator includes investigating the reasons why a company has failed; collecting, protecting and realising the company’s assets; and distributing the proceeds of realisation in accordance with the statutory rules of distribution. The liquidator regime in Hong Kong thus places an emphasis on ensuring that the winding-up of financially distressed businesses is conducted in a fair and orderly manner and under the control and oversight of professionals conversant with the winding-up process and rules.
On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.
Florida law provides that a UCC-1 financing statement is “seriously misleading” if it does not include the debtor’s correct name, unless “a search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic, if any, would disclose” the financing statement notwithstanding the misnomer. But how much of a search is required?
“On December 17, 2021, Tokyo-based specialty purpose vehicles JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd. and JPA No. 49 Co., Ltd. formed to acquire and lease Airbus A350 aircraft, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 21-12075). The company reports $100 to $500 million in both assets and liabilities.
Administrators of Arena Television are reportedly investigating an alleged fraud involving millions of pandemic loans, where government-backed loans were offered to businesses to help them deal with the pandemic, and are suing two of the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. More companies may be in a similar position as, according to the National Audit Office, it is likely that the level of fraud in the bounce back loan scheme ranges from £3.5bn to £4.9bn. Who can claim these ill-gotten gains?
Directors’ duties