Appointment An insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed only in respect of some types of insolvency proceedings. In out-of-court and Chapter 11 bankruptcy matters, the company’s management with the assistance of insolvency counsel and financial professionals administer the case. Similarly in Chapter 7 bankruptcy matters, a court-appointed trustee administers the case.

BUILDING BLOCKS: Deciphering Derivatives in Bankruptcy (citation: Nicholas M. McGrath and Ji Hun Kim, Deciphering Derivatives in Bankruptcy, XXX ABI Journal 3, 56-57, 98-99, April 2011) - Nicholas M. McGrath and Ji Hun Kim

FEATURE: Can § 547 Be Used to Avoid Foreign Transaction?: The Extraterritorial Application of Preference Laws (citation: Thomas R. Slome and Jessica G. Berman, Can § 547 Be Used to Avoid Foreign Transaction?: The Extraterritorial Application of Preference Laws, 46-47, 57, March 2011) - Thomas R. Slome and Jessica G. Berman

In a second decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving secured lenders to bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc., on March 4, 2011, Judge Adalberto Jordan affirmed the dismissal of fraudulent conveyance claims brought against the lenders on a revolving credit facility. For more..

The Second Circuit recently issued an opinion that addressed two separate appeals in In re DBSD North America, Inc.(1) The first ruling could make it more difficult for a secured creditor to resolve disputes with junior constituents over plan distributions, while the second may provide leverage to debtors in negotiations with strategic investors attempting to block or propose a plan of reorganisation.

Although the concept dates back several decades, in recent years “gifting” plans have become popular vehicles for avoiding the Bankruptcy Code’s absolute priority rule: a portion of the senior creditor’s recovery is “gifted” to a more junior class (skipping intermediate class or classes) to gain the approval of stakeholders whose approval is strategically important, but who would otherwise receive no distribution under a plan. On February 7, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in In re DBSD North America, Inc., declared that such a plan violated the absolute priority rule.

With businesses being rationalised and a still uncertain future, many tenants are increasingly looking to exit or reduce their leasehold liabilities. That means lease terminations, which in turn means dilapidations claims - Click here..

Companies with headquarters in such far-flung locales as Dubai, Mumbai and Shanghai are increasingly turning to the same place when hunting for new acquisitions: U.S. bankruptcy courts, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review reported. Whether it's ritzy resorts or a furniture retail chain, bankruptcy attorneys say the promise of quality assets available at cheap prices and cleansed of burdensome liabilities is luring more foreign companies to courtrooms in places like Manhattan and Wilmington, Del. "You have a process in the U.S.

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands that either (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests.

On February 7, 2011, in In re DBSD North America, Inc. (“DBSD”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held it was error for the bankruptcy court to confirm a Chapter 11 plan that provided for a “gift” from the debtor’s undersecured second-lien noteholders to the debtor’s existing equityholder.