A recent decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the terms of an engagement letter demonstrates the need to clearly articulate the intended purpose and scope of an engagement. As the case described below demonstrates, if there is any ambiguity with regard to whether or not a fee must be paid and/or when an engagement is terminated, the resolution of such ambiguity may depend upon the description of the engagement’s purpose.

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.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the question of whether a secured creditor’s ability to credit bid—to offset the amount of the creditor’s debt against the purchase price of sale assets rather than bid in cash—is a right guaranteed by statute even in “cramdown” plans of reorganization conducted under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On June 28, 2011, the court ruled in favor of secured creditors with its much anticipated decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC (River Road).1

Introduction

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that redemptions of commercial paper made through the Depositary Trust Company (DTC) are entitled to the “safe harbor” protections afforded to settlement payments under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), and are, therefore, not preferential transfers, even though such payments were made prior to maturity.1 The Second Circuit is the first Circuit Court of Appeal to address the issue, which arises out of the Enron bankruptcy case.

Legal Framework

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.

The pilot measure for mutual recognition and assistance of insolvency proceedings between the courts of three pilot areas in Mainland China and Hong Kong was agreed in mid-2021, which is known as the Cooperation Mechanism.

Since then, liquidators in Hong Kong have had a more certain and structured route to seek, through Hong Kong Court, recognition and assistance from the designated Mainland courts in the three pilot areas including Shanghai, Shenzhen and Xiamen.

Key Takeaways

Over the past several years, unitranche facilities have become increasingly prevalent. This growth has been driven by the ever-growing class of private credit and direct lenders who initially developed the unitranche facility structure, along with traditional bank lenders now joining this market. The unitranche structure has several advantages, including typically quicker execution for the parties involved and in some cases a lower cost of capital to the borrower.

On November 6, 2023, WeWork Inc. and several hundred of its affiliates filed voluntary chapter 11 cases in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. According to a press release issued simultaneously with the filings, WeWork also intends to file recognition proceedings in Canada under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The press release also states that WeWork’s locations outside of the United States and Canada are not part of the reorganization process.

Summary