In the matter of 1A Eden Pty Limited [2021] NSWSC 82 the Court considered whether a disagreement between directors was solemn enough to wind up the company.

P, a director, applied to wind up a company that was the trustee of a unit trust.

P’s fellow directors were S and D. P said there was a deadlock and relations between them had broken down.

P and S were builders. D was a property developer. The 3 agreed to found the Co to develop a site together with P and S to share 50% of the profits and D to take the remaining half as unit holders.

On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions

(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)

Introduction

This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.

In two recent judgments, the Hong Kong companies court has set out the principles applicable to winding up companies holding operating subsidiaries in the mainland through intermediate subsidiaries incorporated offshore, most commonly in the BVI. In doing so, the Honourable Mr. Justice Harris highlighted the need for the petitioner to demonstrate a "real and discernible benefit" to creditors, something which will be challenging to prove if the company’s centre of main interests is not in Hong Kong.

This year’s 1 Chancery Lane Autumn Bumper Briefing takes as its theme – what else? – Covid-19 and its consequences. Some two years after the virus was first identified, and just over eighteen months since the first lockdown began, the courts are starting to deal with cases arising out of the pandemic and the measures taken to contain it.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Habibi Waverton (in liquidation) (administrator appointed) [2021] NSWSC 1443, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in which the Court opted to use its general powers to allow a voluntary administrator to transfer shares without the owner’s consent to implement a DOCA.

Key Takeaways

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition in the United States of foreign bankruptcy proceedings have increased significantly during the more than 16 years since chapter 15 was enacted in 2005. Among the relief commonly sought in such cases is discovery concerning the debtor's assets or asset transfers involving U.S.-based entities. A nonprecedential ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue of whether discovery orders entered by a U.S. bankruptcy court in a chapter 15 case are immediately appealable.

Although the automatic stay contained in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code theoretically extends worldwide, enforcing it against international creditors, particularly sovereigns, can present practical problems in its application. The chapter 11 cases of Kumtor Gold Company CJSC and Kumtor Operating Company CJSC (collectively, "Kumtor") pending before Judge Lisa Beckerman in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 21-11051) have been testing the practical application of the automatic stay's global reach since the commencement of the cases in late May 2021.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a debtor’s appeal of a sale order was statutorily mooted by Subsection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that: (1) while the Bankruptcy Code bars relief for an appeal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), it does not defeat jurisdiction; and (2) Subsection 363(m) applies to appeals from any sale authorized by the bankruptcy court, not just those properly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of October 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the amendments in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) by the Government of India. Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.