For a vast number of professionals, email has become the preferred method for communicating and conducting business. However, many of those people who would choose to fire off a quick email over picking up a phone may not be aware that a casual email can transform into a binding, enforceable contract. Such was the case for the parties in Shinhan Bank v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.), Case No. 17-2700, 2018 WL 3469004 (2d Cir.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the court does have jurisdiction to grant a licensee (as opposed to a tenant) relief from forfeiture provided that the licensee has possessory or proprietary rights (Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1100).

Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture

As an officer of the court every attorney is held accountable to the standards set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct. In bankruptcy court, attorneys are held to additional standards set forth in local bankruptcy law. A violation of the rules can result in harsh sanctions as attorney Richard Gates discovered in In re Gates, Misc. Case No. 18-00301-KRH (Bankr. E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2018).

InIn re Blasingame, 2018 WL 2084789 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. May 3, 2018), the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel demonstrates that trusts can be used to protect assets from the reach of creditors in the context of a bankruptcy.

On 25 April 2018 a new Insolvency Practice Direction came into force with immediate effect (PDIP 2018). Its purpose is to bring the insolvency practice directions into alignment with the procedural requirements under the Insolvency Rules 2016 and the new Business and Property Courts Practice Direction.

On March 5, 2018 the United State Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in U.S. Bank NA v. The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), answering the narrow question of what is the proper standard of review for appellate courts in reviewing a bankruptcy court’s determination of non-statutory insider status.

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. The key issue in the case was the scope of Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code which insulates certain transactions from a bankruptcy trustee’s statutory avoidance powers. A bankruptcy trustee may avoid many types of pre-petition transfers, including preferential payments made to creditors within 90 days of a bankruptcy petition and transfers made for less than reasonably equivalent value completed within two years of a bankruptcy filing.

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Old Cold LLC (In re Old Cold LLC), 879 F.3d 376 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit held that a sale in possible violation of the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision does not allow an appellate court to examine the merits of the sale when the sale-approval order otherwise is statutorily moot under section 363(m).

Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark has seemingly split with the Second Circuit and held that the safe harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not bar fraudulent transfer claims brought on behalf of creditors under state law, ratifying a June 2016 opinion from Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.

In bankruptcy, one of the “powers” granted to a trustee is the ability to undo previously completed transactions in order to facilitate payments to creditors. However, the Bankruptcy Code prevents a trustee from unwinding certain types of transactions. The safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) protects financial institutions performing securities transactions from having to disgorge payments initially made by a now bankrupt company.