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.

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.

The Slovenian legislation includes the following types of in rem securities relating to: (i) real properties – mortgage (hipoteka), land debt (zemljiški dolg), real encumbrance (stvarno breme); and (ii) movables and property rights, respectively – pledge (zastavna pravica), retention of title (pridržek lastninske pravice), transfers by way of security (prenos v zavarovanje), and assignment by way of security (odstop v zavarovanje).

Under Bulgarian law, security interests over assets can be created by way of a pledge (залог) of chattels and receivables or a mortgage (ипотека) over real property.

Austrian law recognises pledges (Pfandrechte), security transfers (Sicherungsübereignungen) and security assignments (Sicherungszession).

According to article 11 of Poland’s Bankruptcy and reorganisation law as of 28 Feb-ruary 2003 (Journal of laws 2009, No. 175, position 1361, as amended), a debtor who is a legal person (including, in particular, a limited liability company) is considered to be insolvent when the value of its liabilities exceeds the value of its assets, even if the debtor continues to pay its liabilities (balance sheet insolvency).

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much awaited decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ______ (2012). The noteworthy decision resolves any uncertainty surrounding a secured creditor’s right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan which arose after cases like Philadelphia Newspapers 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010) curtailed the right.

TOUSA involved one of the largest fraudulent transfer litigations in bankruptcy history.  The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee that both the so-called “New Lenders” and the “Transeastern Lenders” received fraudulent transfers as part of a July 31, 2007 financing transaction.  The District Court reversed in a scathing opinion, but today the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion in its entirety.  The opinion can be found