While the arrival of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge has dominated the British (and the world) headlines this week, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its own long awaited bundle of joy earlier today. In the latest decision in the laborious Nortel and Lehman litigations, the U.K. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that pension claims should not be treated as priority claims and, instead, they should rank equally with general unsecured claims.

With effect as per 1 July 2013, the Austrian legislator has enacted an amendment to the Limited Liability Companies Act (GesRÄG 2013) providing primarily for a de-crease of the minimum share capital to EUR 10,000, as well as a decrease of the formation costs. These changes are aimed at maintaining Austrian limited liability companies’ competitiveness in comparison to other European limited capital compa-nies and to fostering the formation of new limited liability companies also by small service providers.

In the case, the insolvency proceedings had not been used for the purposes provided by Law 85/2006 on insolvency proceedings (Law 85) but for other purposes.

Banks in Bulgaria are seriously concerned with borrowers fraudulently manipulating their accountancy books with the effect that banks’ security interests are declared invalid and banks are declassed into ordinary (unsecured) insolvency creditors.

In times of financial difficult and a challenging market environment, establishing a restructuring trust provides an insolvencyproof structure that meets the demand of the financing banks for an immediate change of control in the com pany while ensuring a professional M&A process with an upside for all stakeholders.

Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.

Navigating the most recent leg in the Quebecor regatta, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and ruled that prepetition transfers made in connection with a securities contract may qualify for safe harbor from avoidance actions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—even if the transferee is a mere “conduit” or “intermediary” financial institution. In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quebecor World (USA) Inc. v. American United Life Insurance Co.), No. 12-4270-bk (2d Cir. June 10, 2013).

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently held that a third amendment to a lease agreement entered into for the purpose of leasing a second building could not be severed from the original lease agreement; and the debtor was not allowed to reject the lease on that second building under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

It was just an old jalopy legally repossessed by his credit union . . . until he filed a bankruptcy petition and the red lights of the automatic stay started flashing. Smokey pulled the lender over and started issuing citations so be forewarned, put your hazard lights on and drive carefully through the postpetition fog, because this decision is relevant to all secured creditors under all Bankruptcy Code Chapters, not just car lenders under Chapter 13.

BAIL-OUT DÉJÀ-VU