Fulltext Search
Better Late Than Never: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Determines That 546(e) Avoidance Safe Harbors Are Available to Defendants That Only Qualify as Financial Participants Several Years After the Subject Transaction in In re Samson Resources Corp.

Following an August 4, 2022 memorandum opinion from Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, a party to a safe harbored contract can qualify as a “financial participant” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code even where the party was not a financial participant at the time of the transaction.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP, Bankruptcy, US District Court for District of Delaware
New Insolvency Law for the Dubai International Financial Centre ("DIFC") Issued

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

Global, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP
End User of Electricity Forward Contract Found Not To Be Forward Contract Merchant Under Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbor Provisions

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

USA, Ohio, Energy & Natural Resources, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP, United States bankruptcy court
Privilege, with some Texas hot sauce

Yesterday (September 12, 2012) the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas provided an excellent lesson on the need to know what sauce is going into the stew that governs privileged communications in bankruptcy proceedings.[1]

USA, Texas, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP, Attorney-client privilege, United States bankruptcy court
Curiosity safe on Mars, forward contracts safe under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code

As NASA engineers breathe a sigh of relief after the “seven minutes of terror” that was the rover Curiosity’s landing on Mars, recipients of payments under commodity forward contracts can—at least in the Fifth Circuit—rest assured that agreements that meet the basic definition of forward contract contained in section 101(25) of the Bankruptcy Code will be protected from preference liability should their counterparties find themselves in bankruptcy. Last Thursday, in Lightfoot v. MXEnegry Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. Aug.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bracewell LLP, Commodity market
Dubai World restructuring subject to special purpose government decree

Dubai's announcement on 25 November 2009 that it would seek a standstill (the "Standstill Announcement") on the debt of Dubai World, a Government of Dubai holding company, whose principal business activities include the master developers Nakheel and Limitless, port operator DP World, and investment house Istithmar, caused a considerable impact across world markets and widespread comment amongst the world media.

Following the Standstill Announcement a number of significant events and further announcements have taken place, principal amongst these have been:

United Arab Emirates, Insolvency & Restructuring, Bracewell LLP, Injunction, Debt, Common law, Dubai International Financial Centre, High Court judge (England and Wales)