A party with a statutory right to an admiralty claim in rem, which had issued its claim after the Admiralty court had ordered the sale of a vessel, did not lose its right to enforce the claim1. The claim in rem could be enforced against the sale proceeds provided that the person liable in personam was the beneficial owner of the sale proceeds.
Facts
This article was originally published by LatinFinance on November 25, 2014.
A rise of cross-border insolvencies in recent years has generated substantial litigation. In some cases, US bondholders, perceiving their treatment under a foreign reorganization plan to be inequitable, have sought a second chance by opposing the plan in the US on the grounds that its enforcement would be contrary to domestic public policy.
The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent disclaimer of the lease.
Background
This article first appeared in the American Bankruptcy Institute, November, 2014.
Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation
In a decision released on June 25, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ASARCO LLC could not maintain CERCLA cost recovery actions against the trustees of residuary trusts created by the will of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. ASARCO, as part of its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, paid the US, the State of Washington, and the Port of Everett, Washington $50.2 million to settle pending CERCLA claims at two Superfund sites in Washington State.
A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.
On 21 October 2013, the financially troubled company Hainan PO Shipping applied for bankruptcy and winding up before the People’s Court of Hainan Yangpu Economic & Development Zone (“Yangpu Court”). The Yangpu Court approved the application on 31 October 2013, and the Court has since nominated the administrators of Hainan PO Shipping.
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that certain distressed debt funds were not “financial institutions” under the definition of “Eligible Assignee” in the applicable loan agreement and thus were not entitled to vote on the debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The District Court decision affirmed a bankruptcy court decision enjoining loan assignments to the funds and recently denied the funds’ motion to vacate the decision.”1
In a novel decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in its ruling In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), that personal injury claims of individuals allegedly harmed by a bankrupt debtor’s products cannot be asserted against a pre-petition purchaser of the debtor’s assets, as they are “generalized claims” which belong to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate rather than to the individuals who suffered the harm.
Background