Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.

The Hong Kong court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement for a Hong Kong-listed, Bermuda-incorporated fertilizer manufacturer based in the mainland. In doing so, the Honorable Mr Justice Harris also warned holders of U.S. denominated debt that where they use offshore schemes of arrangement, they run the risk of individual creditors presenting winding-up petitions in Hong Kong. The view has however been queried in recent U.S. authority.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

Tightening trade restrictions and concerns swirling around intellectual property rights are creating new risks for conglomerates faced with financial stress, especially when it comes to selling their assets.

When conglomerates encounter financial difficulties, they often sell assets to raise cash and pay off debts. But governments in the United States and elsewhere have begun to increase scrutiny of sales of assets to foreign entities buyers. Many governments have the power to restrict certain sales of assets on the basis of national interest concerns.

In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court held that a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license does not eliminate the licensee’s right to use the trademark through the completion of the contract, settling a split in the Circuits. The Supreme Court also ruled that the case was not moot, despite the bankruptcy estate’s distribution of all of its assets, which may have important implications for the developing jurisprudence on mootness in bankruptcy cases.

In In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, et al., No. 18-12341 (SMB), 2019 WL 1270818 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 18, 2019), Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed that upon sufficient contractual language, "make whole" prepayment premiums are enforceable under New York law even after loan acceleration. The court emphasized that the language of the contract provided for such a result and that this was an enforceable liquidated damages clause under New York law.

In a unanimous 25 February panel decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff’s investment firm can claw back billions in Ponzi scheme proceeds from investors who received the proceeds indirectly through non-U.S. “feeder funds” (funds that aggregate investor capital to invest in funds such as Madoff’s).