The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that a channeling injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

On August 27, 2013, in a case of first impression, the Third Circuit rejected an attack on a foreign liquidator’s petition for recognition of an Australian insolvency proceeding under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code premised on the argument that the foreign proceeding violated US public policy.

In the middle of the night back in February 2013 the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 (the IBRC Act) was passed by the Irish government. This Act allowed the Irish Minister for Finance to make a Special Liquidation Order winding up IBRC, being the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. As a consequence of that KPMG in Dublin were appointed as Special Liquidators of IBRC.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently shut down litigation filed by plaintiffs who had represented to a Bankruptcy Court that their claims were worth far less than they were attempting to recover in a lawsuit filed in federal district court. Queen v. TA Operating, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4419322, (10th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013).

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.

There have been a number of recent cases where companies have sought a reduction in their share capital by way of a High Court sanctioned process. One such case involving Aer Lingus raised interesting issues about the status of pension fund shortfalls as liabilities of the employer company as Emmet Scully and Jennifer McGuire report.

In a reduction of capital application, the High Court’s primary concern is whether the company’s creditors would be prejudiced by the reduction of capital.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") recently affirmed a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") section 546(e), which protects from avoidance both "margin payments" and "settlement payments" as well as transfers made in connection with a "securities contract." In Quebecor, the Second Circuit affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts and held that the purchase by Quebecor World (USA) Inc.

On a matter of first impression, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in the Derivium Capital, LLC bankruptcy case on May 24, 2013,1 affirming the District Court’s ruling that Grayson Consulting Inc. ("Grayson"), the chapter 7 Trustee’s assignee, could not avoid as fraudulent conveyances Wachovia’s2 commissions, fees, and margin interest payments because those payments were protected from recovery by the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") section 546(e).

On April 16, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") issued its decision in In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.,¹ in which the court held that (1) the relevant time for analyzing a debtor’s center of main interest ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign proceeding is at or around the time a petition for recognition is filed; (2) the determination of COMI is dependent on the facts of each case, which may include insolvency proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction; and (3) the public policy exception to relief sough

On March 1, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C. et al, (Inre Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C.)¹ (“Texas Grand Prairie”) affirming an order of the bankruptcy court confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization over the objection the secured creditor that argued that the interest rate proposed by the plan to be paid to the secured creditor was too low in violation of 11 U.S.C. §1129(b).