On June 13, 2012, Judge Harlin D. Hale of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas refused to enforce provisions of a Mexican plan of reorganization that purported to extinguish guarantees by the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.  In refusing to enforce the non-debtor release, Judge Hale held both that the release of non-debtor guarantors was contrary to United States public policy and that the release did not merit enforcement under the specific criteria of chapter 15 for granting relief to a foreign debtor.

The recent chapter 11 case of the storied New York law firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, will raise a host of issues attendant to the dissolution of a modern day “big law” firm partnership.  Chief among these issues is likely to be whether the profits earned by former Dewey partners in completing Dewey’s open client matters belong to Dewey or the former Dewey partners.

On May 30, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court in one federal district lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a debt was discharged under a chapter 11 plan confirmation order issued by a bankruptcy court in another federal district.  Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 1:10-cv-20509-KMM, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891 (11th Cir. May 30, 2012).  The decision makes it clear that a debtor must seek enforcement of its discharge order in the same federal court that granted the discharge in the first place.

On May 4, 2012 Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a claim against a debtor’s estate, transferred to a third party, is subject to the same infirmities as in the hands of the original holder of the claim.  In re KB Toys, Inc., — B.R. —-, 2012 WL 1570755, at *11 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012).  Judge Carey’s opinion diverged from, and criticized, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs., L.L.C., 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y.

Leisure Norwich (2) Ltd & Others v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited & Others - [2012] EWHC 951(Ch). Incurring liabilities to third parties is often necessary in order to carry out an effective administration of an insolvent company.

The UK Supreme Court's decision in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) caps the extensive litigation which developed in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (Lehman Brothers) almost four years ago.

It all began on 15 September 2008 when Lehman Brothers went into administration following what the Courts have referred to as its performance failures on 'a truly spectacular scale', foremost of which was the failure to protect its clients' monies.

There are some strict rules which apply when an individual is made bankrupt. Some of them were brought to the fore recently in the case of Floyd Foster v Davenport Lyons (A Firm) in the Chancery Division EWHC 275 (Ch).

The main cardinal rules are:

The recent case of F Options Ltd v Prestwood Properties Ltd concerned the setting aside of a transaction as a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

A preference arises when a company's creditor is put in a better position than they would otherwise have been in the event of the company's insolvency. Transactions may be a preference whether or not the parties are connected, but where it can be shown that there is a connection within section 249 of the Insolvency Act 1986, two important advantages are gained:

The law allows any person to be treated as a director even though that person has not been formally appointed as a director. Such directors are known as de-facto directors. By contrast, a de jure director is a person who has been validly appointed as a director.

The recent case of Re Snelling House Ltd (In Liquidation) [2012] EWHC 440 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder to consider possible claims against de-facto directors who may be acting under the wrong impression that they are beyond reprehension.

The facts

The recent bankruptcy case of Hostess has centered on Hostess’s attempts to reject collective bargaining agreements with its unions.  Hostess has emphasized that realigning labor costs is essential to its ability to successfully reorganize.  Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth detailed requirements that a debtor must meet to modify or reject CBAs.  Bankruptcy courts’ ultimate decision to authorize rejection of a CBA frequently turns on a detailed examination of the evidence presented in support of the rejection motion.