“[T]he bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the debtor’s former employees’] motion to compel arbitration” when the dispute turned on the relative priority of their claims, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 6, 2016. In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 2016 WL 5853265, *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016). The Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) trustee in the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.

Summary

An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees.

By now (unless you’ve been living under a rock), we’re all familiar with the expression, “Netflix and chill.” It’s everywhere. Flooding your Instagram feed with duplicitous memes. Halloween costumes. Really, really bad pick-up lines. Like the many trite colloquialisms that have come before it, Netflix and chill’s ubiquity has begun to wane with overuse and time.

This appeal is from an order by a district court in California, affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding, in which the trustee sought avoidance of fraudulent transfers.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (“the Court”) held in In re John Joseph Louis Johnson, III, Case No. 14-57104, 2016 WL 1719149, that a creditor violated the automatic stay by seeking to enforce an arbitration award against nondebtor co-defendants. The automatic stay applies not only to stay actions against the debtor personally but also prohibits “any act to … exercise control over property of the [debtor’s bankruptcy] estate.” 11 U.S.C.

First published in the International Arbitration 1/3LY, Issue 7

Insolvency law contains summary processes for dealing with claims and protections against certain proceedings commencing or continuing. There has been some debate, and recent case law, concerning the primacy of these rules over agreements to arbitrate. In the following article, we look at what the current position is under English law and beyond.

General position under English law

In another case involving a winding-up petition, the petition was dismissed, after the court found there was a dispute as to whether the statutory payment scheme applied to the contract.  The contractual arrangements between the parties were not formally documented, but there was a basic agreement as to the scope and price of the works, which arose out of a subcontract between Ro-Bal and main contractor McAlpines to provide fabrication and erection of steelworks at two sites.  At one site the works were completed and paid for, but at the other there was a dispute regarding payment

The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.

1. Applicable Law

1.1.1 Interim measures in Scotland are governed partly by court procedure rules and partly by statutory provisions. The relevant court procedures are determined by:   

• the nature of the interim measure sought; and
• the court from which the interim measure is sought.

1.1.2 There are two levels of court which may grant interim measures in civil proceedings, namely: