In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.

In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.

On 28 January, the English High Court handed down the first ever judgment sanctioning a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) (“Plan”) invoking the new cross class cram down procedure introduced into UK law in June 2020.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment commenced a public consultation process on 8 February 2021, in relation to proposed legislation which will allow for a new restructuring procedure for the rescue of small companies.

Introduction

The new German stabilizing and out of court restructuring regime came into effect on 1 January 2021. The "Stabilization and Restructuring Framework of Companies Act", known as StaRUG1, heralds a new phase in the German restructuring landscape, introducing a framework of tools including a new restructuring plan, which will enable debtors to restructure and cram down minority creditors outside of German insolvency proceedings for the first time.

While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation¹ due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes

In January 2020, we analyzed a split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a non-debtor holding a debtor’s property on the petition date has an affirmative obligation under section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to return that property to the debtor immediately following the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

It is a basic principle of the law of corporate insolvency that the assets of a company are effectively frozen for the benefit of all of the company’s creditors when a liquidator is appointed. The principle is provided for under Section 602 of the Companies Act 2014. It provides that any disposition of company property, which includes the sale of shares in the company and the charging of company property, that is done without the sanction of the liquidator or a director who has retained the power to do so, will be void unless the court otherwise orders.

The holidays came early for the United States Trustee (the “U.S. Trustee”) on November, 3, 2020, when a three-judge panel of the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit, on direct appeal, reversed the bankruptcy court and upheld the constitutionality of a 2017 increase to quarterly fees payable to the U.S. Trustee in Hobbs v. Buffets LLC (In re Buffets LLC), No. 19-50765, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34866 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020). Although the Fifth Circuit’s opinion addresses a variety of constitutional challenges to the recent increase to U.S.