On December 13, 2012, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti from the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York denied the appellant Notes Trustee’s request to compel payment of an administrative expense claim.

How will it impact on pensions?

Under the Bankruptcy Act 1988, the general rule is that all property “belonging” to a person adjudicated bankrupt on the date of adjudication vested in the Official Assignee. The extent to which this rule extended to pension assets depended on the type of pension vehicle the person being declared bankrupt participated in and the actual terms of the pension scheme or policy.

The 1988 Act has now been amended to include detailed and prescriptive provisions relating to the treatment of pension assets on bankruptcy.

On January 7, 2013, the Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a dispute concerning the debtors’ use of cash collateral was not subject to arbitration, notwithstanding a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ underlying agreement, because the decision to allow a debtor to use cash collateral constituted a “core” issue and was a fundamental aspect of the bankruptcy process. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., No. 12-22052 (RDD), 2013 WL 82914 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013).

Background

On January 30, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held that, pursuant to section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code, a municipal debtor is not required to seek court approval to enter into settlements with and make settlement payments to prepetition creditors during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. The decision demonstrates the broad scope of section 904 and the free reign that a municipal debtor enjoys under that section during the pendency of its chapter 9 case. In re City of Stockton, Cal., Case No. 12-32118 (Bankr. E.D. Cal.

On December 4, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added to the growing body of case law delineating the extent of bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction in the wake the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall.

There have been a number of recent developments regarding the current system of examinership and the legislation governing repossession and other lender’s rights. Norman Fitzgerald, Partner and Head of Eversheds’ Insolvency Group, discusses the proposed amendments and their likely impact.

Circuit Court Provisions for Examinership

On Nov. 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. issued a groundbreaking decision under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides the mechanics for U.S. bankruptcy courts to deal with cross-border insolvency proceedings. Although deference to judgments of foreign courts is the norm under Chapter 15, in this instance the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce a court-approved Mexican plan of reorganization on the ground that it contained non-consensual non-debtor releases of noteholders’ claims against the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.

In a ruling predicted by the Restructuring Review Blog last month, Judge Meredith A. Jury of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California rejected arguments by CalPERS that the Bankruptcy Court should lift the automatic stay and require San Bernardino to pay pension obligations owed to the pension fund. In re City of San Bernardino, California, Case No. 12‑blk‑28006‑MJ , (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012) (Docket No. 299).

August 31, 2012: Second Circuit Adopts Abuse of Discretion Standard of Review for Equitable Mootness Decisions

March 9, 2012: Publication of Dynegy Examiner’s Report