Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas granted involuntary bankruptcy petitions against ten US subsidiaries of Mexican glassmaker Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. (the “New Debtor Subsidiaries” and “Vitro”, respectively). The ruling is a win in the multi-paned litigation involving certain petitioning noteholders (the “Noteholders”) in their fight against Vitro’s efforts to effect a non-consensual restructuring of their debt through a Mexican insolvency proceeding.

Disgruntled debtors seeking to evade their obligations by filing fraudulent liens soon face new threats under Illinois law. On July 25, 2012, Governor Patrick Quinn approved and signed Senate Bill 1692, which is intended to provide additional remedies for wrongfully filed UCC liens^.5 Senate Bill 1692 becomes effective January 1, 2013 and will be incorporated into section nine of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code. 

A third court confirms that settlement payments are still settlement payments and early redemptions of notes prior to maturity are exempted from preference actions.

In 2012, several judicial opinions have reminded directors, officers and “responsible persons” that personal liability may be imposed for business taxes. See our alert from June 20, 2012. Responsible persons are reminded again that not only will authorities impose liability for unpaid taxes of a business on individuals but that the imposition of such taxes may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

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]

In the case of In re Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California heard arguments on September 4, 2012, as to whether the alleged debtor, a tribal casino, was eligible for bankruptcy protection. The court concluded the casino was not an eligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether you are a John Donne, Ernest Hemingway or Metallica fan, the above clause rings a bell. Last week the Court of Appeal for Western Australia joined those “Riding the Lighting” and provided its own musings on “For Whom the Bells Tolls” down under. Rather than affirming that the bell tolls for the infamous Spanish guerrilla fighters or a tortured metaphysical poet, the Australian court provided a new answer: The Bell [decision] tolls for “would be” secured lenders.

The Department of Education (DOE) and the CFPB are pushing Congress to make it easier for students to discharge student debt issued by private lenders by filing for bankruptcy protection. The recommendations of the DOE and CFPB would not affect the majority of student debt, which is issued by the federal government, because federal loans already offer leniency in the form of deferrals, forbearance or more flexible payment options. No such cushion exists for private loans.

On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

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.