Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background

In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background

Key Takeaways

Overview

This bulletin is the first of a Fasken series about the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Yukon in the ongoing receivership proceedings of Yukon Zinc Corporation (“Yukon Zinc”), indexed as 2021 YKCA 2. The decision addresses several important issues, including: (i) the scope of Section 14.06(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), which creates the Crown’s super priority charge for environmental remediation over the real property of a debtor; and (ii) Crown claims relating to unfurnished security or future costs.

Key Takeaways

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

Le 2 décembre 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec (la « Cour ») a rendu un arrêt important dans l’affaire Syndic de Montréal c’est électrique confirmant la décision du juge de première instance à l’effet que la Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») ne détenait pas de sûreté sur les sommes détenues dans le compte bancaire de Montréal C’est Électrique (« MCE » ou la « débitrice »).