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.

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).

The context - validity of appointment of administrators

The appointment of administrators under a charge prevents a company’s directors from exercising any management powers without the administrator’s consent.
However, the charge must be enforceable at the time of the administrators’ appointment. What happens if the directors dispute that the charge was enforceable? Are they prevented from controlling the company to reject the appointment.

The background

IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.

The background

Whenever there is an apparent monetary debt, common practice is for a claimant to threaten a winding up petition as part of the tactics to get a potential defendant to pay up. Three weeks after a statutory demand letter is sent where an apparent debt for £750 or more exists, a winding up petition can be issued against a company which has not paid (the actual financial wellbeing of the payer is irrelevant as long as they have not paid). Whenever an apparent debt is in dispute this can be a powerful tool to unsettle a defendant.

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