In a 2021 chapter 15 decision, In re Bankruptcy Estate of Norske Skogindustrier ASA,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that foreign law avoidance claims that are sufficiently analogous to claims under section 548(a)(1)(A)² of the Bankruptcy Code—but not identical—may fall within the intentional fraud exception to the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e)³ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”).

A series of related decisions issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the ongoing Fairfield Sentry U.S. redeemer litigation — Fairfield Sentry II,¹Fairfield Sentry III,² and Fairfield Sentry IV³ — provide insight into, among other things, the interplay between the safe harbor provision of section 546(e)⁴ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”) and chapter 15.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

Recently in Novinda,1 the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel2 upheld the separate classification of creditor claims in a chapter 11 plan on the basis that, among other things, such c

Roust Corporation (“Roust”) caught everyone’s attention when, on January 6, 2017, Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain held a joint first day and confirmation hearing and confirmed the prepackaged plan of reorganization of Roust Corporation and certain affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) only six (6) days after the Debtors commenced their chapter 11 cases. In re Roust Corporation, et al., Ch. 11 Case No. 16-23786 (RDD) (Bankr. S.D.NY. Dec. 30, 2016). You’re a seasoned bankruptcy attorney.

Recently, in GSE Environmental, Inc. v. Sorrentino (In re GSE Environmental, Inc.), on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the Chief Executive Officer’s claim for unpaid compensation payable in stock constituted an equity security rather than a general unsecured claim.

While you can probably think of other contenders, if any case “resembles the walking dead,” it is the recent case of In re Commonwealth Renewable Energy, Inc. In Commonwealth, the court was faced with a motion to dismiss the debtor’s chapter 11 case pursuant to

Anyone investing equity in an enterprise, whether creating a start-up or purchasing an established company, is a natural optimist.  The hope is that the business will continue to perform well and yield its owners substantial profits year-after-year (and then maybe a hefty return upon exit).  But, as those of us in restructuring know, not every company enjoys positive returns all the time.  Businesses go through down cycles for different reasons – whether it be the overall economic climate (think 2008), issues specific to a particular industry (think dropping oil prices), a gr

If cramdown failures are par for the course, why are we all so fascinated with them? One thing is certain: they always provide a good teaching moment for practitioners. Marlow Manor’s chapter 11 single asset real estate case is no different.