In a recent opinion on an issue of first impression,¹ the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that foreign entities seeking recognition under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code must, in addition to satisfying the requirements for recognition set forth in that chapter, have a residence, domicile, place of business or assets in the United States.

In the first appellate court decision on the issue, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that trade claims subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are disallowable “no matter who holds them.”¹ In In re KB Toys Inc., the Third Circuit affirmed Bankruptcy and District Court decisions holding that trade claims subject to disallowance in the hands of an original claimant remain disallowable in the hands of a subsequent transferee.

On November 15, 2013, Judge Martin Glenn of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that original issue discount (“OID”) created in a prepetition “fair market value” debt exchange is not disallowable in bankruptcy.¹ This noteworthy ruling provides important and long-awaited guidance for the investing community on the question left open by the Second Circuit’s 1992 ruling in LTV Corp. v. Valley Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.).²

BACKGROUND

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code offers a strong defense for holders of bonds, notes and other securities to preference and fraudulent transfer actions brought in bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially, any payment made to settle or complete a securities transaction, including repurchases and redemptions of bonds, notes and debentures, is protected from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code. For many years, however, this powerful defense was rarely used. When the defense was raised, it was usually in the context of protecting payments made in leveraged buy-outs.

Can a secured creditor decide not to participate in a bankruptcy proceeding and thereby avoid any impact the bankruptcy may have on its lien? According to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in S. White Transp., Inc. v. Acceptance Loan Co., 2013 WL 3983343 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013), the answer appears to be that at least in the Fifth Circuit, the secured creditor can avoid the impact a bankruptcy plan has on its lien by simply declining to participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Over the last two decades, many companies faced with excessive asbestos-related liabilities have successfully emerged from bankruptcy with the help of section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which channels all asbestos-related liabilities of the reorganized company to a newly formed personal injury trust. The injunctive relief codified in section 524(g) is modeled on the channeling injunction first crafted in the bankruptcy case of Johns-Manville Corporation, once the world’s largest producer of asbestos-containing products.

In drafting the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to nonresidential real property, Congress intended commercial landlords to be “entitled to significant safeguards.”1 Examples of the protections afforded to commercial landlords include requiring a debtor to remain current in its payment of post-petition rent;2 allowing landlords to drawdown on a letter of credit without prior bankruptcy court approval;3 permitting landlords to setoff pre-petition unpaid rent against a security deposit and/or lease rejection damages;4 recognizing that a tenant’s possessory rights in nonresident

On September 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) had the right to repay $1.3 billion in debt (“Notes”) without payment of a make-whole amount.¹ The Second Circuit dismissed all of the arguments raised by U.S. Bank Trust National Association (“U.S.

On August 8, 2013, the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (ELNY) Restructuring Agreement closed, following the denial of the last relevant appeal of the trial court’s Order of Liquidation and Approval of the Restructuring Agreement in May 2013.

Recently, the English High Court considered¹ how to interpret a material adverse change (“MAC”) clause which is a provision that routinely appears, in various forms, in loan agreements but on which there is limited case law. The court found in this case that there had been no MAC in the financial condition of a borrower.