A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

This article debunks the myths surrounding court-sanctioned winding-up in Hong Kong and lays out the process clearly, so you know what to expect.

The term “winding-up” refers to the sale of a company’s assets to settle its debts and distribute the surplus (if any) to its shareholders. Once this process is complete, the company is dissolved.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.

The German Federal Court of Justice was recently asked to decide whether a waiver in favour of company director had been validated by the preliminary insolvency administrator's consent.

Background

Introduction

Though bankruptcy filings are down in 2021, the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and reopening of the courts nationwide could lead to a rise in bankruptcy filings with many businesses still struggling to cope with the economic and supply chain aftereffects of the pandemic and consumer purchasing habits. These bankruptcies, in turn, will have an inevitable ripple effect on creditors and other claimants, whose abilities to collect on claims and exercise rights, are significantly restricted by the automatic stay.

A series of related decisions issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the ongoing Fairfield Sentry U.S. redeemer litigation — Fairfield Sentry II,¹Fairfield Sentry III,² and Fairfield Sentry IV³ — provide insight into, among other things, the interplay between the safe harbor provision of section 546(e)⁴ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”) and chapter 15.

In Re Freeman FinTech Corporation Ltd [2021] HKCFI 310, the Hong Kong court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of a debt restructuring in which the governing law of part of the debt was not Hong Kong law and the creditor to whom this debt was owed did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court. In this article, we discuss the background and rationale for the decision and provide some observations on what the decision may mean for future debt restructurings.

The liquidity-fueled lull in restructuring activity provides both an interesting historical echo of the late 1990s and a useful opportunity for market participants to take note of a deceptively interesting opinion in Giuliano ex rel. Consolidated Bedding, Inc. v. L&P Financial Services Co. (In re Consolidated Bedding, Inc.), Case No. 19-50727, 2021 WL 2638594 (Bankr. D. Del. June 25, 2021) (Shannon, J.).

The Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court’s order, finding that a bank's properly perfected security interest in a debtor’s assets had priority over oil producers’ unfiled, unperfected security interests in oil proceeds, but did not have priority over a statutory lien granted to certain producers under the Oklahoma Lien Act. SeeMatter of First River Energy, L.L.C., 986 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2021). In the case, First River Energy, LLC (the “Debtor”), a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Texas, filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.