In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

Summary

On 30 March 2022 the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan for Smile Telecoms Holding Limited in which the court for the first time allowed the exclusion of all but one class of creditors from voting on a restructuring plan. The sanction hearing considered several salient issues around challenges made to a plan by a creditor or shareholder, questions of jurisdiction and the concept of a "compromise or arrangement" in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("CA 2006").

Background

In what could prove to be a landmark judgment, a Dubai court ruled earlier this month that the directors of a company in bankruptcy should be personally liable for the company’s debts, to the sum of almost AED 450,000,000 (around US$ 122,000,000).

Article 144 of Federal Law No.9 of 2016 (the “Bankruptcy Law”) allows a court to order directors to pay a bankrupt company’s debts where:

A new cooperation arrangement for mutual recognition of and assistance to cross-border corporate insolvency and debt restructuring proceedings has been established between Mainland China and Hong Kong (the Cooperation Arrangement).

The Cooperation Arrangement is provided in a Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the ROM) signed by the Mainland’s Supreme People's Court (SPC) and Hong Kong’s Department of Justice on 14 May 2021.

In its recent decision in Matter of First River Energy, LLC,¹ the Fifth Circuit resolved a priority dispute between lienholders regarding their competing claims to cash held by the debtor, First River Energ

In a new opinion issued in the Chuck E. Cheese bankruptcy cases, In re CEC Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 20-33163 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.),¹ Judge Marvin Isgur of the U.S.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA“) ushered in a flexible restructuring compromise or arrangement for companies in financial difficulty (the “Restructuring Plan“). The legislation governing the Restructuring Plan sits alongside that for schemes of arrangement and is included in a new Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006.

The Restructuring Plan does not apply to companies that are solvent with no risk of insolvency; rather it only applies to companies where two conditions have been satisfied:

While those in the restructuring and insolvency profession have been attempting to predict what the temporary suspension of the wrongful trading provisions proposed by the government might look like, the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill (the “Bill”) is not quite as anticipated.

With unanimous vote, the German Parliament passed the Law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, criminal and insolvency law. This new law brings with it several (temporary) changes of law all of which aim at mitigating the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in both private and business life. Inter alia, the following provisions have been implemented:

1. Suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency

Although the Supreme Court identified three guideposts for evaluating whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive 23 years ago in BMW v. Gore and refined those guideposts 16 years ago in State Farm v.