Introduction
On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.
On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals1 vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.2 The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.
Introduction
Procedural background
Facts
Statute of limitations
Actual fraudulent conveyance
Settlement
Comment
Introduction
Background
Third Circuit's majority opinion
Dissent
Analysis
Successor claims as property of the estate
Introduction
Background
Release of non-debtors in US bankruptcy proceedings
Recognition and enforcement of foreign non-debtor releases
Limits on bankruptcy jurisdiction
Introduction
Shifting balance between international arbitration and bankruptcy
Arbitration clauses in US bankruptcy courts
Implications of Stern v Marshall
Introduction
Federal pre-emption
Section 546(e) safe harbour
Tribunecase and decision
Lyondell: background
Former shareholders in leveraged buyouts may be sued by the estate representative or by creditors to recover funds paid to them for their shares as fraudulent transfers under federal or state law if the debtor subsequently files for bankruptcy.