In IDEA Boardwalk, LLC v. Revel Entertainment Group, LLC (In re Revel AC Inc.), Case No. 17-3607, --F.3d--, 2018 WL 6259316 (3rd Cir. Nov. 30, 2018), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently enforced a tenant’s right to offset rent under a rejected lease of real property, pursuant to section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code and the doctrine of equitable recoupment.

Facts

Debtor Revel AC, Inc. (“Revel”) owned a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It filed for chapter 11 relief in 2014.

Leasing of aircrafts is a prevalent market practice in the aviation industry, and all existing airline operators in India have currently leased a significant number of aircrafts in their fleet. In fact, a sizeable debt in the books of these operators is in connection with such leasehold arrangements.

Section 364(a) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to incur unsecured debt, like trade debt, in the ordinary course of business. Section 364(b) of the Code provides, however, that when a debtor plans to incur unsecured debt, like a loan, outside the ordinary course, the debt must be pre-approved by the bankruptcy court after notice to creditors and a hearing.

In Lone Star State Bank of West Texas v. Waggoner, et al. (In re Waggoner Cattle, LLC), Adv. P. No. 18-02003 (RLJ) (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas reminded us that creditor’s claims against third parties can confer jurisdiction on a bankruptcy court when the claims could have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.

In Claridge Associates, LLC, et al. v. Anthony Schepis (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), Adv. P. No. 16-50083 (LSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 2, 2018), the Honorable Laurie Silverstein held that a chapter 7 trustee was authorized to sell the right to pursue fraudulent conveyance claims to third parties, pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Court extended the Third Circuit’s holding in Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery, 330 F.3d 548 (3d. Cir. 2003) (en banc) to chapter 7 cases.

Piercing the corporate veil (PCV) is a remedy often pursued by a creditor of an insolvent entity against the entity’s parent or principal.  While the corporate veil generally shields a shareholder from the general obligations of his or her corporation, PCV allows a creditor to look beyond the corporate shield and, in certain instances, hold a shareholder liable for the corporation’s debts.

On 11 October 2018, the Supreme Court (Court) vide its judgment in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v Parag Gupta and Associates (Civil Appeal No. 23988 of 2017) clarified the applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). 

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations) for the fourth time in 2018 on 5 October 2018 through the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate 

Federal bankruptcy judges, who are not appointed under Article III of the Constitution, do not have the power to enter a final judgment in all matters that come before them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), they generally may enter a judgment in all cases under the Bankruptcy Code or in certain proceedings defined as “core proceedings.”

The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).