In In re Eastman Kodak Co., 495 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) (No. 12-10202), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (Kodak) to assign a previously assumed real estate lease despite the lease’s anti-assignment clause.

In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-cv-416 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2013), the court held that the attorney-client privilege associated with certain patents travelled with the patents where the patents were the majority of the assets owned by each transferor.

In In re Village at Lakeridge, LLC, BAP Nos. 12-1456, 12-1474 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit clarified that, in order to apply the common interest doctrine, a trial court must make a finding that the parties expressly or implicitly agreed to participate in a joint legal strategy. In this case, secured creditor, US Bank, deposed the sole unsecured creditor, Rabkin.

In Wallis v. Centennial Insurance Co., No. 08-cv-2558 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013), Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the Eastern District of California held that the New York Superintendent of Insurance had the authority to assert the attorney-client privilege on behalf of an insurer that was in the process of being liquidated by the Superintendent.

In In re Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co., No. 11-15719 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2013), the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that a law firm hired to represent the debtor could not assert privilege on behalf of the debtor’s individual directors and officers.

The Ninth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court properly denied a motion to compel arbitration against a debtor, notwithstanding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute, and held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion to adjudicate the claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.  In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 671 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2012) (No.

In O’Neil v. Crane Co., 266 P.3d 987 (Cal.

In Jagodzinski v. Silicon Valley Innovation Co., No. 6203, Slip Op. (Del. Ch. Feb.

In CML V, LLC v. Bax, No. 735, 2010 (Del. Sept. 6, 2011), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a creditor of an insolvent LLC, unlike a creditor of an insolvent corporation, does not possess standing to pursue derivative claims. CML, which had lent money to a jet leasing company that later became insolvent, brought a derivative action charging that the company’s officers had engaged in mismanagement and selfinterested transactions.

For nearly a year, the Scottish Lion Insurance Company, Limited ( “Scottish Lion”), an insurance company that wrote coverage in the London insurance market, has been litigating with its creditors (policyholders), including many U.S. creditors, to permit it to enter into what is known under U.K. law as a solvent scheme of arrangement. A Scottish appellate court recently ruled in favor of Scottish Lion on a preliminary question of whether such a scheme could be sanctioned under U.K. law despite opposition from a minority of U.S.