Zone of Insolvency

Zone of Insolvency

Tag Archives: Jurisdiction

Global bankruptcy financial restructuring and insolvency group releases the Q2 2022 issue of International Restructuring Newswire

Posted in Australia, Bankruptcy Courts, Europe, Financial Restructuring & Insolvency, Global, Singapore, US
Our global bankruptcy financial restructuring and insolvency team has released its quarterly International Restructuring Newswire. Our new issue features articles from Singapore, the US, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Australia to help you stay current on recent developments in restructurings in various jurisdictions around the globe.   Recent case law developments in Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws show… Continue Reading

Federal Court deems Halifax a “classic candidate” for cross border insolvency cooperation

Posted in Administration
On August 22, 2019, Justice Gleeson delivered her judgment in Re Halifax. Halifax Australia (Halifax Aus) owned and operated a number of Halifax investment services companies operating under the Halifax name in various locations around the world. In late 2018, liquidators were appointed to Halifax Aus. At the time, Halifax owned 70% of Halifax New… Continue Reading

English Court of Appeal affirms application of the “Gibbs Rule” in a cross-border restructuring

Posted in Australia, US
Under the English common law rule known as the “Gibbs rule,” a contractual obligation can be changed or discharged only in accordance with the law governing that obligation. Consequently, a debt governed by English law may not be discharged in a foreign insolvency or under a foreign restructuring plan unless the creditor submits to the… Continue Reading

Will Singapore become an international center of debt restructuring?

Posted in Australia
Singapore has set its sights on becoming an “International Center for Debt Restructuring”, approaching the status of London and New York. Key to achieving that goal, in 2017 Singapore enacted the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 which effected major legislative changes to restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 50) 2006 (referred to hereafter as… Continue Reading

Claims against IPs: the rising tide

Posted in Europe
The role of an IP has always been challenging – taking control of a company in crisis, making swift decisions based on limited information and balancing the competing interests of stakeholders; all of this requires sound judgment, often under extreme pressure. It is no surprise that, when things go wrong (or perhaps more accurately when… Continue Reading

Narrow Means Narrow

Posted in US
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif—another case addressing issues raised in the wake of the Court’s “narrow” Stern v. Marshall decision. While the case clarified some of the jurisdictional issues raised by litigants post-Stern, many issues remain and each Justice seems more… Continue Reading

Difficulties in Pursuing Non-Bankruptcy Litigation in Bankruptcy Court

Posted in US
When a defendant in a lawsuit files for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court will not necessarily have jurisdiction over the pending litigation. The court must determine that the case is either “core” or “related” to the bankruptcy. In Ammini v. Labgold (In re Labgold), Case No. 14-01043, decided on June 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court for… Continue Reading

In re Nobel Group, Inc.: Just Kidding–The Bankruptcy Court Doesn’t Really Have Jurisdiction After All

Posted in US
In Nobel Group, Inc. v. Cathay Bank (In re Nobel Group, Inc.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California reviewed the scope of its jurisdiction post-confirmation and held that, notwithstanding plan provisions stating the contrary, the court did not have jurisdiction over the reorganized debtor’s claims asserted against its previously secured creditor.… Continue Reading

Circuit Split Deepens in Wake of Arkison

Posted in US
As we previously discussed, the Supreme Court’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, dodged the question of whether litigants can consent to final adjudication of “Stern problem” claims by a bankruptcy court. Two recent decisions in the Fifth and Ninth Circuit have revealed the scope of the uncertainty left in Arkison’s wake and… Continue Reading

Arkison: A Supreme Dodge

Posted in US
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison—a case that was expected to answer fundamental questions about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy courts.  The case had the potential to either dramatically reshape, or strongly reaffirm existing fraudulent transfer litigation law and practice.  Instead, in a… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Appears Ready to Limit Bankruptcy Court Power in Fraudulent Transfer Actions

Posted in Bankruptcy Courts
After January 14’s oral argument in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, the big question appears to be not whether the Supreme Court will scale back bankruptcy court power over fraudulent transfer actions, but how drastic the new limitations will be.  Our previous discussions of Arkison appear here and here. Background The facts of Arkison are… Continue Reading

SCOTUS Will Hear Argument on Bankruptcy Court Authority in Fraudulent Transfer Litigation on January 14, 2014

Posted in US
As we discussed in a recent post on Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, the United States Supreme Court is preparing to address the constitutional limits on bankruptcy court authority in fraudulent transfer litigation. In granting certiorari in Arkison, the Supreme Court agreed to consider two questions: Can a bankruptcy court issue proposed findings of fact… Continue Reading