Fulltext Search
Avoiding Foreign Transfers Based on Foreign Law Claims: Norske Case Favors Flexible Approach to Safe Harbor Analysis in Chapter 15

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”).

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court
Avoiding Foreign Transfers Based on Foreign Law Claims: Fairfield Sentry Cases Illustrate Broad Scope of Safe Harbor in Chapter 15

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.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Delaware District Court Affirms Decision Holding Triangular Setoffs Are Not Permitted

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

USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Debtor, US District Court for District of Delaware
Triangular Setoff Impermissible Under Section 553: No Contracting or Theorizing Around It, Section 553 Requires Mutuality

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.

USA, Banking, Company & Commercial, Healthcare & Life Sciences, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, United States bankruptcy court
Tenth Circuit B.A.P. on Novinda’s Classification: No Gerrymandering, No(n)-Creditor Interest, No Problem

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

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bankruptcy, Breach of contract, Tenth Circuit
Whirlpool Corporation v. HHGreg, Inc. (In re HHGregg, Inc.)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Debtor, United States bankruptcy court
In re Dickson

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

USA, Kentucky, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC
Bankruptcy opinions within a day or two of issuance from the Western and Eastern Districts of Kentucky, the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Bankruptcy, Supreme Court of the United States, United States bankruptcy court, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit
Cox v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions, LLC

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Sixth Circuit
In re Wilson

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC