Introduction

In a measured opinion hewing closely to standard principles of contract interpretation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. 12-105, slip op. (2d Cir. Oct. 26, 2012), rejected the notion that a sovereign may issue bonds governed by New York state law and subject to the jurisdiction of the state’s courts, and then restructure those bonds in a manner that violates New York state law.

Becoming the first Court of Appeals to address an issue that has divided the bankruptcy and district courts, the Ninth Circuit adopted a forceful view of Stern v. Marshall,1 to hold in In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.2 that absent the parties’ consent, the limitations imposed by Article III of the Constitution deprive a bankruptcy judge of the constitutional authority to enter judgment on fraudulent transfer claims brought against parties who have not filed proofs of claim.

The intricacies of pursuing environmental claims against financially distressed parties

In a prolonged financial downturn, it is an even more difficult burden for many companies to shoulder their own environmental remediation requirements.Pollock’s article examines the steps to consider if a co-liable potentially responsible party (PRP) is either showing signs of economic distress or has already filed in bankruptcy.  

The US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts says default rates must be justified as a reasonable measure of damages at the time of the making of the loan and that a floating default rate that can exceed 5% will not be allowed as part of a creditors claim in the borrower's bankruptcy.    The loan was made in 2006 with a contract rate equal to prime at a time when the prime rate was below 13 percent.

Introduction

On November 13, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a press release entitled “US Labor Department Recovers Nearly $220 Million for Madoff Victims.” On the same day New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (the “NYAG”) issued a press release entitled “A.G.

Law Decree No. 83/2012, providing “Urgent Measures for the Country's Development”

Law Decree No. 83 of 22 June 2012 (the “Decree”), effective as from 26 June 2012 and converted into law with amendments1, has introduced important measures aimed at stimulating the Italian economy (also referred to as “Decreto Sviluppo”).

The Decree, consisting of seventy articles, sets forth a heterogeneous set of rules, including, among other provisions, significant amendments to the Italian Bankruptcy Law.2

The New Jersey Appellate Court has recently ruled that a receiver can be sued for injuries sustained in a building under the receiver’s control.  The case involved a dilapidated apartment building in Passaic and injuries sustained thirteen months after the receiver was appointed by judge overseeing the foreclosure case of the first mortgage holder.  The receiver was charged with responsibility to collect rent; manage, insure and repair the premises; pay taxes and assessments; and “do all things necessary for the due care and proper management of the mortgaged premises.”  Acco

In a surprising decision certain to reinvigorate the ongoing debate about the scope of Stern v. Marshall, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a broad view of Stern and held that the structural nature of the limitations imposed on bankruptcy courts by Article III of the Constitution could not be waived by a party’s failure to object at the trial court level. The decision, Waldman v. Stone, 2012 WL 5275241 (6th Cir. Oct.