Background

Avanti Communications Group PLC ("Avanti") are a satellite operator headquartered in London, with subsidiaries across Europe and Africa, providing fixed satellite services in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Avanti had issued Senior Secured Notes maturing in 2021 and 2023 and had borrowed under a senior term loan. Due to delays associated with two of Avanti's satellites, Avanti experienced financial difficulties, with a materially over-leveraged capital structure.

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that comity outweighed the parties' contractual choice of jurisdiction. Although claims would be allowed to be brought in the US, any recoveries would need to be pursued in Italian insolvency proceedings.

Energy Coal, an Italian company engaged in trading coal and other raw materials, commenced debt restructuring, or Concordato Preventivo ("Italian Proceedings"), proceedings in Italy in 2015. The restructuring plan allowed for the business to continue as a going concern and pay creditors from future revenues.

A Belgian diamond and precious metals trader, Exelco NV, has filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 15 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 17-12409). Exelco North America, Inc., along with three other American affiliates of Exelco NV, previously filed for Chapter 11 on September 27, 2017 (Lead Case No. 17-12029).

Pacific Exploration & Production Corporation ("the Company"), a Canadian public company who explore and produce natural gas and crude oil with operations focused in Latin America. In April 2016, the Company obtained an initial order from the Ontario Superior Court for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act for the restructuring of the Company.

The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a case filed under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code as the debtor's centre of main interest ("COMI") was not in the jurisdiction where the initial Liquidation was filed.

Creative Finance Ltd was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 1995. However the Company's main trade occurred in England, Dubai and Spain. In December 2013 the Company filed for Liquidation in the BVI, being its place of incorporation, and a Liquidator was duly appointed.

In its first bankruptcy decision of 2014 (October Term, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held on March 4, 2014, in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), that a bankruptcy court cannot impose a surcharge on exempt property due to a chapter 7 debtor’s misconduct. In reversing a ruling by the Ninth Circuit, Law v. Siegel (In re Law), 2011 BL 148411 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct.

A "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor's assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize cost and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy. A Texas bankruptcy court recently added to this slim body of jurisprudence. InIn re Buffet Partners, L.P., 2014 BL 207602 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2017)

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch