In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

Effective March 23, 2015, the Ohio Revised Code will contain robust provisions for the court appointment of a receiver, which will expand the statutory grounds for such appointments and expressly authorize enumerated powers for receivers designed to facilitate the receiver’s ability to liquidate assets. In many respects the revised statute codifies a number of existing practices.

In a major victory for secured creditors, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee has held that a sale of secured property must afford a secured creditor the right to credit bid for its collateral under section 363(k) of title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code), except in extraordinary circumstances upon a showing of “cause.” The court held that even where secured party credit bidding might impact the competitive bidding process – including potentially “chilling” third party bids – this alone does not constitute sufficient cause to deny a credito

Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC¹ that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.

On June 9, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of key rulings regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority.¹ Notably, while Monday’s Executive Benefitsdecision answered one important question arising out of the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall,² it also left the primary question that resulted in a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals to be decided another day.

The Aftermath of Stern v. Marshall

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court decision in the Qimonda AG chapter 15 bankruptcy case,¹ providing that holders of intellectual property licenses based on U.S. patents are entitled to the special protections contained in 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).² In so doing, the court bolstered the rights of U.S. intellectual property licensees whose agreements might otherwise be vulnerable to termination in a cross-border insolvency proceeding.

Background

In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.

Timing and Enactment

Overview

Overview

In a major victory for secured creditors, the United States Supreme Court, on May 29, 2012, unanimously held that a chapter 11 plan involving a sale of secured property must afford the secured creditor the right to credit bid for the property under section 363(k) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).¹ In so holding, the Supreme Court resolved the split that had emerged among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals, as illustrated by the Seventh Circuit’s decision below,² which contrasted with recent decisions from the Third and Fifth Circui