Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.

On Sunday, March 12th, the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) (the Agencies) announced that the New York Department of Financial Services had appointed the FDIC as receiver for Signature Bank, which was closed on March 11th.  Subsequently, the FDIC announced that it had transferred substantially all of the assets and all of the deposits of Signature Bank to the newly created Signature Bridge Bank, N.A.  Early on March 13th, the FDIC announced a similar transfer of assets and deposits to Silicon Valley Bank, N.A., another n

In the Chapter 15 case of Three Arrows Capital, Ltd., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that Rule 45 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule 45”) authorizes service of subpoenas to U.S. nationals or residents who are in a foreign country through alternative means to personal service, including via email and Twitter.

Under Section 101(54) of the bankruptcy code, any means of disposing with an interest in property is considered a transfer, and therefore, under certain circumstances, may be avoided as a preference or fraudulent transfer. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit addressed the scope of the provisions. The Third Circuit recently held that prepetition lease termination did not give rise to a transfer.

Background

Section 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the court to award the debtor sanctions on account of an improper filing of an involuntary petition against it. But can a non-debtor third-party obtain such a relief? Yes, says the Bankruptcy Court In In re Vascular Access Centers, L.P., No. 19-17117 (AMC), 2022 WL 17366463 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2022).

Background

Corporate insolvency numbers continued to appear artificially low in 2022. The expectation is that they will rise once businesses need to deal with the aftermath of Government pandemic supports and, in particular, start to pay warehoused taxes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case that Fifth Amendment takings claims cannot be discharged or impaired by a bankruptcy plan. As a matter of first impression in that circuit, the Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that former property owners affected by prepetition takings must be paid in full.

In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022)

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an agreement between a debtor, a surety, and third-party beneficiaries was not an executory contract and, thus, was ineligible to pass-through the bankruptcy unaffected. The Fifth Circuit, however, adopted a modified Countryman test for muti-party executory contracts. Matter of Falcon V, L.L.C., 2022 WL 3274174 (5th Cir. 2022).

Background

The High Court recently rescinded an order adjudicating a debtor bankrupt in Ireland because the debtor failed to disclose material facts to the Court in his application for bankruptcy. In doing so, the Court established a duty of full disclosure that debtors must comply with when seeking to be adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland.

This decision will be welcomed by creditors where there is a concern that a debtor may seek to relocate from other EU member states to Ireland to avail of Ireland’s comparatively benign bankruptcy regime.

Background

The High Court has held that disclosure of debts and undertakings given to the Circuit Court in seeking a protective certificate for a personal insolvency arrangement can be relied on in other proceedings.

Background

The McLaughlins were engaged in a long running saga of litigation with Bank of Scotland plc (“BOS”) and, after a loan sale, Ennis Property Finance Limited (“Ennis”).

In 2016 they issued High Court proceedings against Ennis and Tom Kavanagh (the “Plenary Proceedings”).