最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国企业破产法》若干问题的规定（一）(09/09/2011)
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued a decision that will significantly limit the chances of success for many claims that the trustee of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (“BLMIS”) estate, Irving Picard, has brought against former investors in BLMIS to recover funds for the estate. In Picard v. Katz, 11 Civ. 3605 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a decision that dismissed most of the causes of action brought against a group of investors under the U.S.
Overview of Insolvency Rules and Restructuring Procedures Pursuant to Italian Bankruptcy Law
An article by the National Underwriter Company discusses a recent Moody’s report that asbestos claims are again on the rise after years of declining or flat claims.1 This has led several insurers to increase their asbestos reserves and Moody’s views this trend as a warning flag for the property and casualty insurance industry as a whole.
In re Caribbean Medical Testing Center, Inc. (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico) Case no. 11-06124
In re Hotel Airport Inc. (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico) Case no. 11-06620
In the recent case of Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In re Whittle Development, Inc.), No. 10-37084, 2011 WL 3268398 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2011), a bankruptcy court was asked whether a preference action could be sustained against a creditor who purchased real property in a properly conducted state law foreclosure sale. Recognizing a split of authority and some contrary principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its prior decision, BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994), the bankruptcy court found that a preference claim could be asserted.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision of Stern v. Marshall, debatably the most important case on bankruptcy court jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, established limits on the power of bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on certain state law created causes of action.
In re GALP Highcross Limited Partnership (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Case no. 11-36741
In re GALP Waters Limited Partnership (Bankr. S.D. Tex.) Case no. 11-36743
In re Culver Village, LLC (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) Case no. 11-46359