At a conference to be held at the end of the summer recess on September 27, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to grant petitions seeking review during the new Term that begins on October 4 of three notable appeals involving issues of bankruptcy law. Two of those appeals address the doctrine of "equitable mootness." The third concerns federal preemption of a non-debtor third party's tortious interference claims against other non-debtor third parties.

A secured creditor's right to "credit bid" the amount of its allowed claim in a bankruptcy sale of its collateral is an important creditor protection codified in section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code. Even so, a ruling recently issued by the U.S.

Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Spyglass Media Group, LLC v. Bruce Cohen Productions (In re Weinstein Company Holdings LLC), 997 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2021).

はじめに

ケイマン諸島と香港の裁判所は、この数ヶ月、ケイマン諸島の会社を再編することを目的とするクロスボーダーの申立てについて、関連する法域における裁判所がどのようにこれを処理するのか実用的な方向性を示しました。これは、国際礼譲および修正された普遍主義の原則に沿ったものです。

裁判所のスタート地点

手続が一つ以上のコモンローの法域で開始されたが、清算人の任命が未了の場合、裁判所が修正された普遍主義を適用するためのスタート地点は、倒産の主手続の役割を担うのはどの法域がより適当かということを考えることでしょう。最近の香港およびケイマン諸島の両地域の裁判例では、長年の先例に沿いながら、通常この法域とは会社の設立地であることを確認しました。なぜならば投資家やサービス・プロバイダーおよび債権者が通常関係しているからであり、とりわけ、会社の登録された営業所であったり、その取締役会の義務やその定款を規定する法律の地であるからです。

In cases under both chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and its repealed predecessor, section 304, U.S. bankruptcy courts have routinely recognized and enforced orders of foreign bankruptcy and insolvency courts as a matter of international comity. However, U.S. bankruptcy courts sometimes disagree over the precise statutory authority for granting such relief, because the provisions of chapter 15 are not particularly clear on this point in all cases.

In In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C., 2021 WL 1603608 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed the interaction between purported setoff rights arising under investment agreements governed by Islamic law and the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbors protecting the exercise of non-debtors' rights under financial contracts.

Madoff

Introduction

Introduction

The Grand Court has recently provided helpful clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied when a dispute arises over the identity of the insolvency practitioners proposed to be appointed by a creditor or the company. In Global Fidelity Bank Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)^[1] the Court confirmed the 3-stage test for determining independence and that in applying the test, significant weight should be afforded to the views of the creditors.

Background

It is generally recognized that a bankruptcy court has the power—either equitable or statutory—to recharacterize a purported debt as equity if the substance of the transaction belies the labels the parties have given it. A ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York provides a textbook example of such a recharacterization. In In re Live Primary, LLC, 2021 WL 772248 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar.