In a recent decision by the Second Circuit, Lucas v. Dynegy Inc. (In re Dynegy, Inc.), No. 13-2581 (2d. Cir. Oct.

Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has now weighed in on a hotly debated circuit court split.

In Part I of our entry on Weinman v. Walker (In re Adam Aircraft Indus.

Who are we kidding? The topic of statutory insiders has been a blog favorite, year after year.

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”).

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

“We’re riding down the boulevard,
We’re riding through the dark night,
With half the tank and empty heart,
Pretending we’re in love, when it’s never enough, nah.”

Recently, in SEC v. Miller, No. 14-4261-cv (2d Cir. Dec.

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