Japan Inc has embarked upon the overdue process of unbundling its conglomerate structures. Businesses that are being put up for sale include distressed oversees operations, particularly in the automotive sector. Managing the businesses while they are in distress, preparing them for sale, and eventually selling them, comes with a variety of legal and practical complications. The legal landscape will vary by jurisdiction, but the following aspects generally need to be considered in some shape or form regardless of the applicable law.

The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Picard v. Citibank, in which the petitioner sought review of a Second Circuit decision on a seemingly obscure point of law: the pleading burden for “good faith” under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Second Circuit’s decision is part of, and highlights, a larger, systemic problem in the evolution of bankruptcy law over the last decade—the multiplication of trustee-friendly interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code that, when combined, leave innocent subsequent transferees unfairly vulnerable to meritless clawback suits.

On 17 December 2020 the German Parliament has passed the rules on the further development of the German restructuring and insolvency law and it will now enter into force on 1 January 2021. An essential part of the law is the introduction of a corporate stabilisation and restructuring regime, which establishes a legal framework for out-of-court restructurings in Germany on the basis of the EU Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 (Directive (EU) 2019/1023) (the Preventive Restructuring Framework).

On November 22, Judge Stuart Bernstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a series of claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) responsible for liquidating Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), which sought to claw back and recover over $4 billion in transfers made by certain nonU.S. hedge funds to their non-U.S. investors.

Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code

Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code bars state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims asserted by creditors seeking to augment recoveries from a bankruptcy estate

Earlier today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Transfer Litigation, No. 13-3992-cv, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor of Section 546(e) (the Safe Harbor) prohibits clawback claims brought by creditors under state fraudulent transfer laws to the same extent that it prohibits such claims when brought by a debtor.

Summary of recommended changes to the Bankruptcy Code from the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11

Summary of recommended changes

This chart summarizes the Recommendations in the Commission’s Report that relate to or would have an impact on creditors’ rights.

Background

Much Anticipated Extraterritoriality Ruling Could Have Far-Ranging Implications

District Court decides that in a broker-dealer liquidation governed by SIPA, where a trustee seeks to recover funds paid to the defendant under Sections 548(a) and 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which impose liability for fraudulent conveyances where the defendant lacked good faith in receiving the funds: (i) the defendant’s good faith is evaluated under a subjective willful blindness standard, and (ii) to survive a motion to dismiss, the trustee bringing the fraudulent conveyance claims must plead facts sufficient to establish the defendant’s lack of good faith.