The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark  licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a  debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of  intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et  al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).

Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.¹ In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w

In September 2012, Grant Thornton were appointed by the Royal Court of Guernsey as joint administrators of a Guernsey company called Montenegro investments limited (MIL) - a Guernsey property Investment Fund..  The joint administrators then appointed Ogier.

Current Status of MIL

This client briefing provides a general overview of schemes of arrangement for Guernsey companies under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law).  A scheme of arrangement can involve almost any kind of corporate reorganisation, merger, acquisition or restructuring so long as the appropriate approvals and court sanction are obtained. In the context of restructurings, there is limited precedent in Guernsey, although such schemes of arrangement can be used to assist in insolvent/quasi-insolvent restructurings. 

Introduction

Alan Roberts (the Liquidator) was the liquidator of both Kingston Management (Guernsey) Limited (KMGL) and Amazing Global Technologies Limited (AGTL).  He was appointed on 27 May 2009 and 31 May 2010 respectively. 

Introduction

If a company is insolvent, it is either not able to pay its debts as they fall due, or its assets are less than its liabilities.  An investor/creditor will have the ability to put the company into a formal insolvency procedure and, in most cases, appoint an independent third party to take control of the assets and investigate the conduct of the company’s directors, managers and other controlling functionaries.  Defined terms in this article are the same as the terms which were defined in the potential causes of action article.

(Judgment 3/2009)  

The liquidators of Flightlease (Guernsey) Limited (“FLGL”) applied to the Court for an order that no dividends be paid in the liquidation of FLGL to Flightlease (Ireland) Limited (“FLI”) in respect of guarantees given by  

FLGL in respect of FLI’s liabilities. FLI’s liabilities to FLGL were outweighed by the liabilities owed in the opposite direction.