Key point
The Joint special administrators of an investment banking entity succeed in obtaining a direction to allow them to distribute client assets quickly.
Facts
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
Key point
The Court of Appeal has recently given detailed guidance on what happens to the surpluses available in the insolvency of companies after dealing with an appeal in relation to the so-called Lehman Waterfall Application dealt with in an earlier Update.
Facts
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.
Key Point
The ECJ has outlined how the protection afforded to a counterparty by Article 13 of the European Insolvency regulation works where an insolvency officeholder challenges a transaction governed by a law different from the one which applies to the insolvency of the estate generally.
Facts
Key Point
The Court of Appeal has overturned a first instance decision (discussed in our April 2014 Update) that the Companies Court should not normally make an order upon a winding up petition based on tax assessments that are under appeal.
The Facts
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).
Key Point
A provisional liquidator may be appointed if the evidence justifies it even where the tax assessments upon which the winding up petition is based are under appeal.
Facts
Key Point
Subrogation operates not by assigning the benefit of the relevant third party's security but by creating new security rights in the hands of the subrogated creditor similar to those held by that third party.
Facts
Key Point
An administrator appointed under a qualifying floating charge can "adopt" an existing winding up petition for the purposes of liquidating the company where the benefit to the creditors of the insolvent estate is manifest on the facts.
Facts