Following our articles on:
In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.
In 2018 the Supreme Court delivered its much-awaited decision in the case of SPV OSUS Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd & Ors where it confirmed that the assignment of a claim is unenforceable in Irish law unless the assignment is ancillary to a bona fide transaction or the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in the assignment.
The Irish Government has signed an Order giving the Cape Town Convention Alternative A insolvency remedy force of law in Ireland.
The Cape Town Convention creates an international uniform body of law applicable to interests in aircraft assets for the protection of financiers, lessors and conditional sellers and to establish basic remedies available to them under agreements relating to the aircraft assets.
* This article was first published by INSOL International on April 17, 2015.
Courts have held that the Bankruptcy Code's avoidance powers do not apply extraterritorially, SIPC v. Bernard L Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC ("Madoff"),480 B.R. 501 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 2012); Barclay v. Swiss Fin. Corp Ltd., 347 B.R. 708 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006); Societe Generale plc v. Maxwell Commc'n Corp plc "Maxwell I"),186 B.R. 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) and others have found to the contrary, Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell),543 B.R. 127 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. BLMIS (In re BLMIS) , 513 B.R. (S.D.N.Y.
Italian bankruptcy law — Royal Decree No. 267 of 16 March 1942 — (the Bankruptcy Law) underwent a substantial reform between 2005 and 20091, mainly aimed at introducing (i) a more efficient regulation of the pre-bankruptcy agreement procedure (concordato preventivo)2 and (ii) new pre-bankruptcy schemes of arrangements, in the form of the out-of-court debt restructuring plan (piano attestato di risanamento)3 and the debt restructuring agreement (accordo di ristrutturazione dei debiti)4.
Recently, Japanese bulk-shipping company Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha sought bankruptcy protection in both Tokyo and New York. The company, which features a fleet of 185 vessels used primarily to transport cargo such as limestone, cement and coal overseas, commenced its United States bankruptcy proceedings by filing a Chapter 15 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Yesterday afternoon in Newark, New Jersey, Judge John K. Sherwood of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.'s request to recognize its Korean bankruptcy case and to provide U.S. bankruptcy protection to its assets and operations within the United States. However, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's protection is subject to another hearing on Friday to sort out what arrangements can be made among the various stakeholders.
Arthur C. Clarke famously observed: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Our regulatory, legislative, and judicial systems illustrate this principle whenever new technology exceeds the limits of our existing legal framework and collective legal imagination. Cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin, has proven particularly “magical” in the existing framework of bankruptcy law, which has not yet determined quite what bitcoin is—a currency, an intangible asset, a commodity contract, or something else entirely.