This article was originally published by LatinFinance on November 25, 2014.

A rise of cross-border insolvencies in recent years has generated substantial litigation. In some cases, US bondholders, perceiving their treatment under a foreign reorganization plan to be inequitable, have sought a second chance by opposing the plan in the US on the grounds that its enforcement would be contrary to domestic public policy.

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.

In a novel decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in its ruling In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), that personal injury claims of individuals allegedly harmed by a bankrupt debtor’s products cannot be asserted against a pre-petition purchaser of the debtor’s assets, as they are “generalized claims” which belong to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate rather than to the individuals who suffered the harm.

Background

In the recent case of Davis v. Elliot Mgmt. Corp. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48102 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014), the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision barring reorganization plans from paying legal fees of individual members of official creditors’ committees absent a showing of substantial contribution to the estate.