The economic landscape continues to remain challenging, or, in some cases, looks to be getting worse, thereby impacting trading conditions across borders. It is likely that in most jurisdictions, trading conditions will worsen before they stabilise and, ultimately, improve.
While the Judge-made doctrine of equitable mootness continues to beguile and often stymie parties-in-interest seeking to appeal an order confirming a chapter 11 plan (as well as other orders which are on appeal prior to confirmation of a plan), appellants in the Fifth Circuit can continue to rest assured that the doctrine will be applied only as a “scalpel rather than an axe.” That is because in the Fifth Circuit, the doctrine—which can be described as a form of appellate abstention—is applied only on a claim-by-claim, instead of appeal-by-appeal basis.
The saga of the first Ultra Petroleum Corp. chapter 11 cases appears to have finally come to an end. Numerous articles have been written on the tortured history of whether certain creditors of Ultra Petroleum are entitled to payment of their contractually mandated Make-Whole Amount and default rate of interest.
The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.
The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.
Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.
The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?
The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.
Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.
There has been a significant increase in insolvencies in the construction, real estate, retail and wholesale sectors of the Russian economy, according to the statistics in the Competition Development Bulletin “Concentration on the Russian Markets: Trends in the Period of Recession” published in December 2015 by the Analytical Centre of the Government of the Russian Federation.
On May 4, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a bankruptcy settlement in the form of a tender offer did not violate the principles of the bankruptcy process. See opinion here.
What is this all about?
India is proposing a new insolvency and bankruptcy code. It’s all part of the “Make In India” campaign by Narendra Modi’s government who are trying to attract businesses to India.
Current law
It does not appear that there has been a single separate law for bankruptcy legislation in the country’s history. Currently / historically the following have been used for insolvency purposes:
Individuals may want to think twice before seeking relief under chapter 11 following a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Zachary v.