In October 2016, the Chamber for Commercial Disputes at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the cassation appeal of Eurasian Trading Company LLC (hereinafter – the Trading Company) in Case № А57-16992/2015 against the court’s refusal to introduce monitoring procedures with respect to RBP JSC (hereinafter – the Debtor) and decision to dismiss the application by the Trading Company without consideration.

In early 2015, credit institutions gained the right to initiate the bankruptcy of their debtors according to a simplified procedure – i.e., without a court decision ordering the recovery of debt.

1. Adoption and entry into force of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Procedure dated March 8, 2015, No. 21-FZ

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

The outcome of the TOUSA appeal has been much anticipated and closely watched by the lending community, their counsel and advisors, and legal scholars. On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (found here), reversing the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and affirming the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, at least insofar as to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, but not remedies.

In Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.), Adv. P. No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) [hereinafter “Ballyrock”], the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a contractual provision that subordinates the priority of a termination payment owing under a credit default swap (CDS) to a debtor in bankruptcy, and which caps the amount of the termination payment, may be an unenforceable ipso facto clause under section 541(c)(1)(B).