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.

The Eleventh Circuit recently found in favor of Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. by rejecting its own earlier dicta and explicitly expanding the preference payment defense known as “new value.” This provides additional protection for companies doing business with a debtor in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy.

THE SCOOP: BRUNO’S V. BLUE BELL

On May 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Franchise Services of North America v. United States Trustees (In re Franchise Services of North America), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13332 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). That decision affirms the lower court’s holding that a “golden share” is valid and necessary to filing when held by a true investor, even if such investor is controlled by a creditor.

A mortgage bank has the power to foreclose and sell the collateral if the debtor is in default. However, this power does not apply in full. There is a risk of abuse of power in this respect. The circumstances, motives and actions of the parties play a major role in this. In this situation, the interests of the mortgage bank and the debtor are diametrically opposed. The mortgage bank has an interest in claiming the outstanding claim and the debtor has an interest in maintaining his immovable property.

As from 1 May 2018, a comprehensive reform of the Belgian insolvency framework entered into force. The old framework consisted of two separate laws governing respectively bankruptcy and judicial reorganization. The new legal framework incorporates both regimes in Book XX of the Belgian Code of Economic Law.

Innovations

The Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on whether a prepetition transfer made by a debtor is avoidable if the transfer was made through a financial intermediary that was a mere conduit. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved the split by deciding that transfers through “mere conduits” are not protected. This is a major (and adverse) decision for lenders, bondholders and noteholders who receive payments through an intermediary such as a disbursing agent.

In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.

Bent u bestuurder van een vennootschap die failliet is? Dan kunt u, onder omstandigheden, aansprakelijk worden gehouden voor het boedeltekort. Met deze 3 praktische tips kunt u het risico op aansprakelijkheid zo veel mogelijk voorkomen.

Bogra is a company that is active within the funeral industry. As a result of serious financial problems, an administrator (bewindvoerder) was appointed on 28 June 2017. On the same date Bogra was declared bankrupt (30 June 2017), the employment agreements of Bogra’s employees were terminated. Funico acquired (part of) Bogra’s assets on 18 July 2017 due to an asset transaction. Effective 19 July 2017, Bogra’s activities were continued by Bogra Uitvaartkisten.

In a previous article, Losing Momentive: A Roadmap to Higher Cramdown Interest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a