1 / 11

Issues Faced in Insolvencies

Issues Faced in Insolvencies. Moderator: J Ross McDonough. 17 Jan 2014. Issues Faced in Insolvencies . Liquidation Funding. General trends since 2008 What we don't have in Cayman: DIP financing (at least of the type available in the US and absent parallel Ch. 11 proceedings)

edan
Download Presentation

Issues Faced in Insolvencies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Issues Faced in Insolvencies Moderator: J Ross McDonough 17 Jan 2014 Issues Faced in Insolvencies

  2. Liquidation Funding • General trends since 2008 • What we don't have in Cayman: • DIP financing (at least of the type available in the US and absent parallel Ch. 11 proceedings) • Contingency (i.e. no win-no fee) fee arrangements for lawyers (at least for proceedings pursued in Cayman) • The ability to bring recovery actions without the risk of adverse costs orders

  3. Liquidation Funding • What we do have in Cayman: • Restructuring provisional liquidations: • DIP financing can be provided where there are parallel Ch. 11 proceedings and with a Cayman validation order (eg Arcapita) • Absent parallel Ch. 11 proceedings working capital can still be provided on a secured basis with a Cayman validation order, but the market and process is much less developed

  4. Liquidation Funding • Official liquidations: • Sale of the company’s litigation claims, often in consideration for the estate receiving a percentage of any recoveries made by the purchaser • General liquidation or specific litigation funding, typically on terms where the lender receives principal, interest and a percentage of any recoveries made by the estate (but beware of champerty) • Liquidators being remunerated based on a percentage of realisations and/or distributions • Contingency fee arrangements where the litigation is to be brought in the US (eg SPhinX; AJW) • Conditional fee arrangements where the litigation is to be brought in Cayman (eg DD Growth Premium 2X Fund)

  5. Indemnities & Fund Liquidations • Overview • Indemnification commonly given to: Auditors, Advisors, Directors, Administrators, Brokers • Dynamics introduced to a liquidation • Ranking, Quantification, Timing, Litigation • Principles of reserving for indemnities • “Just Estimate” – §139 • High Degree of Assurance - (SPhinX)

  6. Indemnities & Fund Liquidations • Practicalities in estimating a reserve • Legal Costs, Damages • Rogue Claims, Contribution • Resolving indemnities • Insurance, Distribution Plans, Settlements • Other considerations • CFA arrangements • Jurisdictional Differences

  7. Information gathering by liquidators • Liquidators' powers under Cayman law limited to: • "relevant persons" (definition) – deliver up company's property & documents, examination and interrogatories • Enforcement against non resident parties? • Cross border options – using foreign law • statutory provisions/ regulatory • discovery • ancillary insolvency proceedings • common law • The Saad "Bermuda" cases • background • respective outcomes (pending appeal to Privy Council) and rationale – ancillary proceedings, common law relief

  8. Chapter 15:COMI and Recognition • The “Black Box” and the “Eclipse of Comity”. • The Fairfield Sentry“workaround” Bear Stearnsrelies on first gaining “traction” over time in the foreign main proceeding.In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd., 374 B.R. 122 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff’d 389 B.R. 325 (2008); In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2013). • Fairfield Sentryno panacea: • No time to gain traction in some instances. • Fairfield Sentrystill at risk / may not be followed more widely. • UNCITRAL ‘s new revision to Guide to Enactment to the Model Law is that COMI fixed as of date foreign main proceeding filed. SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP • NEW YORK

  9. CHAPTER 15:The (Continued) Eclipse of Comity • Recognition being interpreted as a question of authority. • Where recognition lacking / impossible / pending, foreign representatives can be denied all assistance in the US. Reserve Int’l Liquidity Fund v. Caxton, 2010 WL 1779282 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010). • More cross-border chaos and competing fiduciaries: • “Blocking” plenary cases filed in the United States. • Fletcher is one such case as are its “cousin” Soundviewcases. • Automatic Stay held to stymie offshore office-holders. SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP • NEW YORK

  10. Chapter 15Drawbridge / Barnet • Drawbridgeproblem arises outside the Model Law context. • Second Circuit held chapter 11 “debtor” requirements = chapter 15 “debtor” requirements • Chapter 15 “debtor” must have a domicile or property in the US. Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2013). • US domestic bankruptcy law undermines Chapter 15: • Some entities could not possibly meet section 109(a). • Some JOLs only wish to conduct discovery in the US. • Could mean rise in “orphaned” non-recognized foreign proceedings. • Problematic as New York a favored venue for Chapter 15 practice • Drawbridge mandatory precedent for New York’s bankruptcy court. • Second Circuit also influential beyond its borders. • Rationale: 28 U.S.C. 1728(a) discovery in aid of foreign proceedings remains available for office holders. SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP • NEW YORK

  11. Thank You Questions?

More Related