In In reLehman Brothers Inc., two creditors recently made an unsuccessful attempt to infuse Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code with ambiguity and avoid the subordination of their claims.  In re Lehman Brothers, Inc., 2014 WL 288571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

In In re Cook, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 67 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Jan.

A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).

In In re Louisiana Riverboat Gaming P’ship (Global Gaming Legends, LLC v. Legends Gaming of Louisana-1, LLC) (“Global Gaming”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana stayed discovery in an adversary proceeding pending decision on a party’s motion to withdraw the reference to the district court, finding too much risk that the bankruptcy court would later be found to be without authority to handle pre-trial discovery for the “Stern-governed” core claims at issue. Adv. Proc. No. 13AP-1007 (Bankr. W.D. La. Jan. 10, 2014).

TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Tallgrass¹⁰ clarifies the threshold that a company must meet when it seeks relief pursuant to the CCAA¹¹, particularly when such an application is met with a competing applicati

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a state’s post-confirmation investigation of a debtor’s post-confirmation conduct does not violate a plan confirmation order that enjoins actions against the debtor.  In re Velo Holdings, Inc. et al., 500 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Transparency Bill. The legislation would, if enacted into law, require bankruptcy trusts to file quarterly reports with bankruptcy courts disclosing the names, asbestos-related exposure history, and basis of the victim’s claims for each claimant. These reports would be made available on the courts’ public dockets. Confidential medical records or social security information would not be disclosed.