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.

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).

In a recent judgment the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the holder (an "Estate Claim Pledgee") of a right of pledge (an "Estate Claim Pledge") which secures one or more estate claims (each, a "Secured Estate Claim") is entitled to satisfy such claims out of the proceeds resulting from enforcement of such right of pledge ("Estate Claim Pledge Enforcement Proceeds") during the pledgor's bankruptcy provided that the claims have arisen from a legal relationship having come into existence prior to the bankruptcy.

Dutch Supreme Court 15 April 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:665)

In a recent judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a party who purchases and accepts the transfer of moveable assets subject to a retention of title acquires a right of conditional ownership with respect to those moveable assets and has the power to create an unconditional right of pledge over such right of conditional ownership.