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.

Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP

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

In the Kitchener Frame Ltd¹ decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that third-party releases in proposals made under the BIA² are permitted. In doing so, the Court relied on the principle that the BIA and CCAA³ ought to be read and interpreted, harmoniously. Finally, the Court sanctioned a consolidated proposal on the basis it met the requirements set out in section 59(2) of the BIA.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) has confirmed that historical environmental remediation obligations will not automatically take priority over the claims of other creditors in an insolvency, even where those obligations are framed in the form of regulatory orders.

On March 13, 2012 the Queen of Hearts in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals showed no sympathy for the White Rabbit’s plight and denied a creditor’s appeal of an order disallowing its late filed proof of claim in the DHL Master Land Holding LLC bankruptcy case.¹

Bankruptcy Courts may be courts of equity, but a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that even equity can’t trump the plain words of a settlement agreement.

The game is tied with three seconds to play in regulation: an inbounds pass, one dribble—and a long shot at the buzzer. It’s the drama we love and expect this month, but whether the result is the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat depends not only on whether the shot goes in but also whether it leaves the shooter’s hands before the buzzer sounds.1 Analogous madness arose this March in a recent complaint filed against an ad hoc group of hedge fund noteholders (the “Noteholders”) in Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust v.

Tronox Incorporated and certain affiliates (the “Debtors”) emerged from Chapter 11 in February 2011 armed with a new capital structure and operational game plan, but that’s yesterday’s news. The flavor of the month is last Friday’s decision by Justice Allan L.