HansOLG Hamburg, decision of February 3, 2012 - 8 U 39/11

The Court has heard another case dealing with a defective appointment of administrators under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)¹. Following hot on the tail of a recent series of conflicting cases relating to defective appointments, the Court has held that:

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

The EU Decision

The EU Commission has held on January 26, 2011 that the so called restructuring privilege offered by German corporate tax law, which allows corporations in a distressed financial situation to continue to set off tax loss carry forwards against future profits even if their shareholder structure has substantially changed, is incompatible with EU State Aid provisions.

The recipients, which have applied the restructuring privilege, are now threatened with the reclaim of the tax benefits.

In France, when bankruptcy proceedings are instituted against a party involved in a pending arbitration it can result in conflicts between the applicable arbitration and insolvency rules. In that context, an arbitral tribunal sitting in France may be confronted with determining the extent to which they must defer to mandatory insolvency rules.

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.

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