In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found a private equity sponsor (the “Sponsor”)¹ liable (and, in some cases, not liable) under various contractual and tort theories in connection with actions the Sponsor took or did not take in its failed efforts to stave off a potential bankruptcy filing of its portfolio company, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc., now known as ASHINC Corporation (“Allied” or the “Company

We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

In a December 16, 2021, decision,¹ Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the bankruptcy court order confirming the Chapter 11 plan of Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Liquidation brings about the formal end to a company, in case it has been insolvent or impotent to pay its responsibilities. It is a procedure of terminating the affairs of a company by the virtue of realizing the assets, discharging the liabilities, and distributing the surplus, among the shareholders. For such a proceeding to take place, an administrative person namely, a liquidator has to be appointed by the board of directors. Ultimately, the name of the company is stricken out from the register of companies.

簡介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，儘管香港法院承認維持完好契據（「維好契據」）的提供者在內地所提出的清盤程序並向管理人提供各種協助，但境外債券持有人在維好契據下的權利仍應根據合約的專屬司法管轄權條款在香港裁決。

維持完好安排與釋疑函件類似，都是內地企業支持其附屬公司發行境外債券的常用增強信貸方式。由於維好契據不構成擔保，內地企業集團往往以此規避禁止為境外債務提供抵押的規定。

背景

We are happy to present the second issue of our e-magazine – Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.

Introduction

Welcome to the sixth edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last three months or so.

The judgment in the much-publicised case of Akhmedovav Akhmedov & Ors[i] in April 2021 is a telling example of where the English Courts have exercised wide-reaching statutory powers to set aside or vary dispositions on trust with extra-territorial effect, notwithstanding the assets are held by offshore trustees, outside the Court’s j

A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).

Market misconduct and mis-selling

In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that: