On 6 June 2018, the Commercial Court handed down its judgment in Nori Holdings Ltd v Bank Otkritie Financial Corp [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm), and provided helpful guidance on three important issues:

1. The Court clarified that West Tankers1 remains good law in that parties will not be granted anti-suit injunctions by the English Court to restrain proceedings commenced in other Member States in breach of an agreement to arbitrate, notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed by Attorney General Wathelet in Gazprom (C-536/13).

milbank.com 1 Client Alert: Close-out Netting Provisions partially held invalid by German Federal Court of Justice General Administrative Act (Allgemeinverfügung) issued by German Federal Supervisory Authority to avoid Legal Uncertainty and Distortions in Financial Markets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") ruled on 9 June 2016 that contractual close-out netting provisions which deviate from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung) are invalid and section 104 of the German Insolvency Code applies in lieu of the invalid contra

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

On April 17, NewSat Ltd. (NewSat) and various affiliates, including Jabiru Satellite Holdings Pty Ltd., were placed in administration in Australia by the trustee for its lenders, Citicorp International, and related petitions were filed in the U.S.

On March 25, LightSquared Inc. obtained U.S. Bankruptcy Court approval to exit Chapter 11 protection pursuant to a restructuring plan that will pay its largest creditor, Charles Ergen, roughly $1.5b in cash to account for full repayment, with interest, of Ergen’s holdings of LightSquared debt.