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

On August 2, 2012, in the case ofIn re MBS Management Services, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a retail electricity agreement with a real estate management company constituted a forward contract protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Code”).

Introduction

On June 23, 2011, after fifteen years of hugely acrimonious litigation, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Court”) issued a decision on a narrow legal issue that may end up significantly limiting the scope of bankruptcy courts’ core jurisdiction.  

Introduction

On 18 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring and asset relief package for KBC under the EC State aid rules. KBC is a Belgian integrated banking and insurance group, based primarily in Belgium and Central and Eastern Europe. KBC has received three aid measures to support it during the economic crisis: in December 2008 a recapitalisation of €3.5 billion; in June 2009, a second recapitalisation of €3.5 billion and an asset relief measure on a portfolio of Collateralised Debt Obligations (“CDO”). Approval of these measures was subject to KBC submitting a restructuring plan.

On 13 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring plan for ING Groep NV under the EC State aid rules. ING is a Dutch financial institution, offering its services in over 40 countries. In October 2008, the Commission approved the liquidity guarantees of €12 billion offered by the Dutch government to support ING during the economic crisis.

On the 12 November 2009, the OFT launched a market study into corporate insolvency. The investigation was prompted by concerns raised with the Government and the Insolvency Service, and also following a recent World Bank report which showed that the costs of closing a business in the UK are higher than in other countries.