According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business  bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate  filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global  and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business  community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.

On January 10, 2014, the Federal Executive Branch of México published in the Official Gazette the legal amendments to México’s Commercial Bankruptcy Law (Ley de Concursos Mercantiles, or LCM), effecting the most comprehensive set of changes to the LCM since its enactment over 13 years ago, and establishing new rules for bankruptcy proceedings in México with the intent to improve the position of creditors dealing with the insolvency of local companies.

A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote  loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy  a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to  avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage,  they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited  two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage.  Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.

A crisis far beyond anything experienced in recent memory

The way in which regulators, investors, banks and governments respond to the current sovereign debt challenges will echo for many years. Decisions made today will, for better or worse, continue to have consequences far beyond our current time horizon. Getting it right will not be easy.

On 5 November 2013, the European Commission launched a consultation on its proposed new guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (“the draft R&R guidelines”) which will replace the current R&R guidelines adopted in 2004. The revision of the 2004 guidelines was postponed a number of times as a result of the financial crisis, during which the Commission applied a special R&R regime for the financial sector. At the time, the Commission was still considering adopting new R&R rules applicable to both the financial sector and the real economy.

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.

On September 12, 2013, in the American Airlines case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (a) authorizing the debtor to use proceeds of postpetition financing to repay prepetition debt without payment of amake-whole amount, and (b) denying a creditor’s request for relief fromthe automatic stay.  

Background Facts