What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.

On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

What’s on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster What's on the horizon? A focus on dispute resolution in the Year of the Rooster 1 What to expect in the Year of the Rooster In this bulletin we examine some of the key dispute resolution and regulatory challenges facing business managers, financial controllers, and in-house counsel in the Year of the Rooster. 1.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

On 3 June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that a valid right of pledge can be established on goods that are delivered subject to retention of title (of ownership). If the buyer is declared bankrupt, the conditional ownership can become an unconditional ownership if the condition precedent is fulfilled (mostly full payment of the purchase price). Next to the buyer, the pledgee can also fulfil this condition. As a consequence, these goods are not part of the bankrupt estate, so that the pledgee can take recourse against these goods.

The facts

Op 3 juni 2016 heeft de Hoge Raad geoordeeld dat er een geldig pandrecht kan worden gevestigd op zaken die onder eigendomsvoorbehoud zijn geleverd aan de koper. Indien de koper failliet wordt verklaard, kan het voorwaardelijke eigendomsrecht uitgroeien tot een onvoorwaardelijk eigendomsrecht door vervulling van de voorwaarde jegens de verkoper (veelal volledige betaling van de koopsom). Ook de pandhouder kan deze voorwaarde vervullen. Het gevolg hiervan is dat genoemde zaken niet in de faillissementsboedel vallen, maar dat de pandhouder hier verhaal op kan nemen.