Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

Big Case for UCC Aficionados

Lenders typically have extensive requirements for what inventory will be deemed “eligible” and included in a borrower’s borrowing base for purposes of determining how much the lender is required to lend. One of those typical requirements is that the inventory be owned by the borrower and located at a borrower location in the United States of America, where it will be subject to the Uniform Commercial Code and amenable to an Article 9 security interest.

Sadly, sometimes tragedy strikes, as it did for the Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. in July, 2013, when one of its trains carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, resulting in 47 deaths, significant property and environmental damage, and the bankruptcy of the Railway. The Railway had a business interruption insurance policy, a settlement was reached with the insurer and the question of who was entitled to the multi-million-dollar settlement arose in the bankruptcy. In re Montreal Maine & Atlantic Ltd., 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 1628. 59 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 101 (Bankr. D.