The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A pair of bankruptcy court rulings handed down in 2017 widened a rift among the courts on this issue.

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

With one exception, the Top 10 List of "public company" (defined as a company with publicly traded stock or debt) bankruptcies of 2016 consisted entirely of energy companies—solar, coal, and oil and gas producers—reflecting, as in 2015, the dire straits of those sectors caused by weakened worldwide demand and, until their December turnaround, plummeting oil prices. The exception came from the airline industry. Each company gracing the Top 10 List for 2016 entered bankruptcy with assets valued at more than $3 billion.

Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

The watchword for 2016 in much of the world was "upheaval." Two unanticipated events dominated the political, business, and financial headlines of 2016, at least in Europe and the Americas: the Brexit referendum result and the election of Donald J .Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The refugee crisis, the commodities meltdown, Brazil’s economic collapse, China’s growing pains, Russian belligerency and alleged cyber-meddling in the U.S. election, the war on terrorism, and the beginning of the end of the bloody Syrian civil war seemed to pale by comparison.

More than a decade after the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, issues pertaining to recognition of a foreign debtor’s bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under chapter 15 have, in large part, shifted from the purely procedural inquiry (such as the foreign debtor’s center of main interests, or “COMI”) to more substantive challenges regarding the limits, if any, that chapter 15 places on U.S. bankruptcy courts. But as demonstrated by the recent ruling in In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2016 BL 8825 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016), U.S.

The world’s second-largest economy (China) stumbled; Japan receded; the U.K. showed signs of life; the war-torn Middle East reeled; oil revenue-dependent Russia, Brazil, and Venezuela took body blows; and the European Union exhaled after narrowly avoiding Grexit (and possibly Brexit), only to confront a refugee crisis of alarming (and expensive) proportions, as well as a demonstrated terrorist threat from the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

A Good Year for the U.S.

The chapter 15 cases of OAS S.A. ("OAS") and its affiliates represent the second time in less than one year that a U.S. bankruptcy court has been confronted with a serious challenge to the recognition of insolvency proceedings in Brazil by a group of U.S. creditors. The latest challenge focused on two separate lines of attack: (1) whether the "foreign representative" authorized to commence a chapter 15 case can be appointed by the company rather than the foreign insolvency court; and (2) whether Brazilian insolvency law is manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy.

A “structured dismissal” of a chapter 11 case following a sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets has become increasingly common as a way to minimize costs and maximize creditor recoveries. However, only a handful of rulings have been issued on the subject, perhaps because bankruptcy and appellate courts are unclear as to whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the remedy.

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065 (2012), pronounced in no uncertain terms that a secured creditor must be given the right to “credit bid” its claim in a bankruptcy sale of its collateral, the controversy over restrictions on credit bidding continues in the courts. A ruling recently handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has added a new wrinkle to the debate. InBaker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Morton (In re R.L. Adkins Corp.), 2015 BL 116996 (5th Cir. Apr.