In the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2010] All ER (D) 358 (Jul), the English Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined that a U.S. bankruptcy court’s monetary default judgment obtained against Eurofinance and its principals, British citizens, was enforceable. In doing so, the Court of Appeal favored a “universal” approach to international bankruptcy cases and recognized adversary proceedings as part and parcel of the main bankruptcy case under American bankruptcy rules.

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has released additional guidance regarding qualifications for failed bank acquisitions by private investors.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A receiver can be an important tool when dealing with a troubled loan or asset.

Value is the central feature of any real estate restructuring, whether you are a debtor in need of cash, a creditor looking to recover collateral or an equity holder considering an additional investment.

On January 15, 2010, in In re Reliant Energy Channelview LP, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denying payment of a $15 million break-up fee to the initial bidder of a power plant in conjunction with the debtor’s Section 363 bankruptcy asset sale. The Court based its ruling on the fact that it did not consider the fee necessary to preserve the value of the bankruptcy estate.

Rather than immediately commencing foreclosure proceedings, lenders and servicers (acting on behalf of the lender) are seeking the judicial appointment of receivers with greater frequency when commercial real estate workout negotiations fail to produve the desired results and the borrower is not otherwise prepared to "turn over the keys."

In Dumont v. Ford Motor Credit Company, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the Bankruptcy Code does not protect a debtor’s personal property collateral if the debtor fails to commit to redeem, reaffirm or assume the underlying loan—even if the debtor continues timely to make loan payments.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has issued a decision concluding that company-paid medical coverage offered as part of an employee severance package is a “retiree benefit” that cannot be unilaterally modified by the company in bankruptcy, except as provided under Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code.