Editor’s Note Here’s What’s Happening in Arbitration Victoria Prussen Spears The AAA Healthcare Payor Provider Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures Important Features and Updates Lisa M. Richman and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado Five International Arbitration Trends and Topics Jeffrey A. Rosenthal, Ari D. MacKinnon, and Katie L. Gonzalez How to Avoid a Pyrrhic Victory in International Arbitration—Part I James P.

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

The bankruptcy of the Mt. Gox cryptocurrency exchange in 2014 was a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency history. It demonstrated the vulnerabilities of early cryptocurrencies and saw the worst fears of the industry become a reality. However, in the years since it has also provided an excellent example of the successful tracing and recovery of a variety of asset classes. Creditors have recently received the first distributions from the recovered assets of Mt Gox, in stark contrast to the initial claims that access to the assets had been lost forever.

Background

In an opinion issued on Sept. 20 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge David T. Thuma held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent a bankruptcy court from determining whether the automatic stay applies to pending state court litigation. See In re Shook, Case No. 24-10724-t7 (Bankr. N.M. Sept. 20, 2024) [ECF No. 54].

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

Executive Summary

Nuo Ji, Lingqi Wang, Jessica Li and Sylvia Zhang, Fangda Partners

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.

The A&O Shearman team, together with counsel Michael Lok and Jasmine Cheung, acted for the opposing creditor in these Scheme proceedings.