The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of lower courts upholding the application of certain swap agreement safe harbors in section 560 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy Code).

The increasing number of high-profile bankruptcies across a number of commercial hubs has brought renewed focus on important questions of jurisdiction arising out of the tension between local insolvency regimes on the one hand, and parties’ arbitration agreements on the other.

Since the end of the first quarter of 2020, bankruptcy professionals have been planning for a substantial increase in business bankruptcies. The newest statistics tell us that the wait is over. These bankruptcy filings follow the sustained economic contraction rooted in the COVID pandemic. But it would be too simplistic to say that COVID is the sole cause of this trend. Most of the businesses that have filed faced other challenges, such as heavy debt burdens, deteriorating markets or strategic missteps.

The number of so-called mega-bankruptcies filed during the first half of the year tells only part of the story. The pain is not just at the top, but spreads across multiple sectors of the economy. Overall, business bankruptcy filings are 30% higher than they have been at any time during the last 5 years. And, with attempts to re-start the economy already sputtering, the news during the second half could be worse.

Everyone, including the least empathic in our society (aka, lawyers), knows that we should seek to uphold the golden rule and “do unto others…” with respect to family, friends, and acquaintances, but does this also apply in the corporate world? Apparently so, as a Delaware bankruptcy court just ruled that preferred shareholders with a bankruptcy-filing blocking right (also known as a “Golden Share”) must consider the effects on other shareholders and all other creditors when exercising such right.

Recent insolvencies remind us that, when a seller of goods is unpaid, the question of possession leaps to the foreground. There is little value in a claim against an insolvent buyer for damages or for the price.

Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.

My latest contribution to BloombergLaw was the following piece on some of the unique issues and challenges presented for self-insured employers and their plan administrators when those employers seek (or contemplate) bankruptcy relief. In brief:

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background