Insights | Kobre & Kim — Disputes and Investigations

Distressed debt investors who are beneficial owners or contingent creditors of bonds face uncertainty when bond issuers stop paying.
Courts in key jurisdictions are beginning to answer the question of whether creditors can wind-up issuers but are offering diverging decisions.
We explain how a recent ruling in the BVI opens the offshore jurisdiction to creditors considering a cross-border enforcement campaign.

Ultra-high-net-worth individuals embroiled in onshore government, commercial or family disputes may find their offshore trusts a vulnerable target.
These often-aggressive attacks set up a complex clash of onshore and offshore law, and demand an equally aggressive and comprehensive response.
There are steps UHNWIs and their advisors can take to reduce their risk exposure and respond to attacks on their wealth.

Judgment and award debtors often hold assets in offshore jurisdictions such as the BVI – but these places are notoriously creditor- and enforcement-friendly.
When cornered by a creditor, debtors often find few – if any – legal avenues to challenge the claim against them.
However, a recent Kobre & Kim victory in the BVI demonstrates that, through deep familiarity of and ability to connect both offshore and foreign law, debtors can defy conventional wisdom and succeed.

Minority shareholders have options to stand up to majority shareholders and directors, such as unfair prejudice claims or derivative actions.
However, if these do not achieve the desired result, one more tool is available to exert pressure: a just and equitable winding up.
We lay out how this tool can be applied in five key jurisdictions for corporate structures in Asia.

Minority shareholders may be surprised to learn that they have effective options when a director or other fiduciary has harmed the company.
However, the situation may be complicated when structures cross borders, as many corporate structures in Asia do, including spreading offshore.
Our Claim Monetization team explores how shareholders can deploy derivative actions in five key jurisdictions across Asia Pacific, the UK and the Caribbean as part of an effective cross-border strategy.

Minority shareholders may have certain remedies available when they feel their rights have been unfairly prejudiced by the majority.
However, the situation may be complicated when structures cross borders – typical corporate structures in Asia may spread across offshore and other key regions.
Our Claim Monetization team lays out the basic parameters of the tools open to minority shareholders across five key jurisdictions.

Many parties, especially those based in Asia Pacific, soon discover that a recalcitrant debtor can frustrate enforcement of a hard-won arbitration award.
In cross-border enforcement campaigns, the debtor may throw up obscure legal challenges to cause delays and distraction.
A recent Kobre & Kim victory demonstrates how, through quick and strategic action, these distractions can be defeated and pressure can be maintained on the debtor.

When monetizing a claim against a debtor, the interplay between arbitration and insolvency is not only critical but also varies by jurisdiction.
When considering a cross-border strategy, it is essential to understand how each jurisdiction interrelates with the others.
Kobre & Kim’s global Claim Monetization and Dilution Team answers the critical questions on these intricacies for key jurisdictions in this comparative guide.

A recent decision involving document disclosure in offshore courts presents an opportunity for PRC-based companies to obtain business intelligence.
This decision — which was made in the English Court of Appeal and will likely influence offshore jurisdictions and Hong Kong — has shed light on how nonparties can get copies of court documents, evidence, written arguments and judgments.
To leverage the opportunity effectively, local expertise of offshore court processes and this new decision, in addition to on-the-ground support in PRC, will be needed.