On January 14, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a circuit split by unanimously holding that the “mere retention of property” by a creditor after the time a debtor files its bankruptcy petition does not violate the automatic stay under § 362(a)(3) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. (“Bankruptcy Code”). In City of Chicago v.

In a pair of significant judgments issued on the same day, Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2940 and FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris has once again issued highly relevant and timely guidance on key cross-border insolvency issues.

India is the seventh largest country in the world spread over a total area of 32,87,263 sq kms, including the territorial seas. Located in South Asia in the tropical belt just north of the equator, it is separated from mainland Asia by the Himalayas, a mountain range that umbrellas the entire northern region stretching to a distance of 2,400 kms to the east. India is home to some of the world‟s highest peaks shielding the country‟s 281 States and 82 Union Territories. Several important rivers originate from this mountain range.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

On Sunday, December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which provides $900 billion in a second wave of economic stimulus relief for industries and individuals faced with challenges from the COVID-19 coronavirus.

Often in winding-up petitions, contributories of the company, for one reason or another, may wish to oppose the winding-up petition in their own right, including by filing evidence and making submissions at hearings. One major concern a contributory may have in deciding whether to take this course of action is of course the potential costs consequences, especially in the scenario where the opposition is ultimately unsuccessful and the company is wound up.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, insolvent companies have sought court intervention relating to the payment of rent during lockdown periods. In the most recent decision on this issue, the Quebec Superior Court (Court) ruled that a debtor undergoing a restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) should not be relieved of its obligation to pay post-filing rent, even in circumstances where its ability to use the leased premises is constrained by governmental orders.

We have blogged previously about section 546(e), the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain transfers otherwise subject to avoidance as preferences or fraudulent transfers. See 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). Among the transfers protected by the section 546(e) safe harbor are transfers by or to a “financial participant” made “in connection with a securities contract.” Id.

It is a basic principle of the law of corporate insolvency that the assets of a company are effectively frozen for the benefit of all of the company’s creditors when a liquidator is appointed. The principle is provided for under Section 602 of the Companies Act 2014. It provides that any disposition of company property, which includes the sale of shares in the company and the charging of company property, that is done without the sanction of the liquidator or a director who has retained the power to do so, will be void unless the court otherwise orders.

The High Court has, for the first time, sanctioned a restructuring plan exercising the power to cross-class cram down. The court handed down its sanction order but noted that, as the first decision to use cross-class cram down, a reasoned judgment will follow in due course.

On 13 January 2021, the court sanctioned three interconditional restructuring plans ('the restructuring plans') for three subsidiaries of DeepOcean Group Holding BV (together with all of its subsidiaries, 'the DeepOcean Group'):