In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

In 2020, commercial chapter 11 bankruptcy filings climbed to their highest levels in recent years, as COVID-19 disruption sparked sharp declines in GDP and volatile stock market swings. Notably, the pandemic accelerated the restructurings of some companies that were already on the precipice of financial distress, particularly in the retail, energy, travel and hospitality sectors.

Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.

Must a foreign debtor's insolvency representative obtain permission from a United States bankruptcy court before exercising the debtor's rights as shareholder to remove and replace directors and officers of a US corporation? The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit recently held not, provided that the representative does not require judicial assistance to exercise these rights.1

On March 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., case docket no. 127 S.Ct. 1199 (2007), that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from obtaining attorney’s fees authorized by a valid prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

13 ноября 2015 года был подписан Закон РК «О внесении изменений и дополнений в некоторые законодательные акты Республики Казахстан по вопросам реабилитации и банкротства» (далее – «Закон»), положения которого введены в действие 29 ноября 2015 года. Закон предусматривает поправки в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РК, Налоговый кодекс РК, Закон РК «О реабилитации и банкротстве» и Закон РК «Об исполнительном производстве и статусе судебных исполнителей».

The recent financial crisis has resulted in events that once seemed impossible. Recently, in the federal government’s attempts to bail out the auto industry, an event unprecedented in American history almost occurred: the forced subordination of existing secured debt to new loans issued by the federal government. If the government were to revive this concept in future bailouts and attempt to subordinate the liens of secured creditors, a suit challenging the constitutionality of such action would have a good chance of success.

The Potential For Forced Subordination

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

Recently, in In re Northwest Airlines Corp.,1 Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper issued an opinion requiring a group of hedge funds that had formed an ad hoc committee of equity security holders (the “Ad Hoc Equity Committee”) to disclose “the amounts of claims or interests owned by the members of the committee, the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof” in order to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”).

Background

On 13 November 2015, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Introduction of Amendments and Supplements to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Issues of Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy” (the “Law”) was signed and its provisions were put into effect on 29 November 2015.