R&I Alert
Restructuring & Insolvency News
October 2018, Issue 3
In This Issue:
• What happens to committee claims when a
case is converted from a chapter 11 case to
a chapter 7 case? 1
• Equitable mootness: alive and well in the
third circuit 1
• Buyer beware: anti-assignment clauses
enforceable under delaware law 2
• Bankruptcy court finds substantive consolidation
of non-debtors not an available remedy in
seventh circuit 3
• A creditor is allowed to be “selfish” when
The Bottom Line
Obtaining a favourable arbitration award often proves to be only half of the battle. Facing obstructive counterparties refusing to honour awards, often based in jurisdictions where enforcement is slow, difficult and uncertain, is a source of regular frustration to those pursuing claims in arbitration. That is why anyone involved in international trade should be familiar with the variety of measures available to enforce their awards.
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Third Circuit, in a nonprecedential opinion in FBI Wind Down, Inc. Liquidating Trust v. Heritage Home Group, LLC (In re FBI Wind Down Inc.), Case No. 17-2315 (3d Cir. July 27, 2018), recently held that the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute that centered on the definition of terms in a court-approved asset purchase agreement because the claims fell outside the scope of an arbitration provision in the agreement.
What Happened?
The American economy is increasingly dependent upon the importation of merchandise, both raw materials and finished goods. Many of these imported goods are subject to duties imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), known as “ordinary duties.” In some situations, supplemental duties such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and now the new duties on aluminum and steel imposed by Executive Order, are also assessed.
The Bottom Line