Key points

Rights under s23, s24 and s31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) can only be pursued by the spouses themselves. Consequently, any ongoing action brought pursuant to those sections of the Act does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy on appointment.

The facts

Key points

• Without notice applications for recognition orders carry the obligation of full and frank disclosure to the English court in relation to the effect such orders may have on third parties.
• Failure to provide full and frank disclosure may have cost consequences.

The facts

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

Key Point

The court adjourned a bankruptcy hearing on the basis that a Spanish court sanctioned liquidation plan for a group of companies in which the debtor had an interest might release value for creditors.

The Facts

Key Points

• Receivers only owe a duty of care to those parties who hold an interest in the equity of redemption.
• Upon the making of a bankruptcy order, the bankrupt ceases to participate in any such interest and the equity of redemption vests in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Facts

Key Point

Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.

The Facts

This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.

The Decision

Key Point

Judgement provides detailed guidance on administrators making distributions in relation to EU incorporated companies.

The Facts

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark  licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a  debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of  intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et  al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).