The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 2, 2011, ruled in favor of SRZ client Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., denying Enron’s petition for rehearing in Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., 651 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2011). The court had previously ruled against Enron more than five months ago, holding that its redemptions of commercial paper were “settlement payments” and thus not voidable as preferential or fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 546(e), one of the code’s so-called “safe harbor” provisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on July 15, 2008, that a major creditor with a seat on the debtor’s board of directors and a 10.6% equity interest was not an insider in a bankruptcy preference suit. In re U.S. Medical, Inc., 2008 WL2736658 (10th Cir. 7/15/08).

“Each litigant [in the U.S. legal system] pays [its] own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.” Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLP, 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2164 (2015) (6-3), quoting Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 252-53 (2010). A majority of the U.S.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a trust deed provision reversing a priority of payment waterfall upon the bankruptcy of a credit support provider under a swap agreement is unenforceable under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a bankruptcy court’s equitable subordination order on June 20, 2008. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), ____ F.3d __, 2008 WL2469406 (5th Cir. 2008). According to the court, subordination of the insiders’ secured claims was “inappropriate” because the bankruptcy trustee had failed to show that the defendant insiders’ “loans to the debtor harmed either the debtor or the general creditors.” Id., at *1. The court also rejected the trustee’s “deepening insolvency” argument on the facts and as a matter of law.

A bankruptcy court must dismiss a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition when the debtor has raised a “legitimate basis” for disputing the petitioning creditor’s underlying claim, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 14, 2015. In re TPG Troy, LLC, 2015 WL 4220619, at *5 (2d Cir. July 14, 2015). The Second Circuit also affirmed the bankruptcy court’s award of $513,427 in attorney’s fees and costs to the vindicated debtor under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) Section 303(i)(1). Id. at *6.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on Aug. 16, 2011, affirmed the lower court’s decision authorizing reimbursement of expenses to qualified bidders for a reorganization debtor’s assets. In re Asarco, LLC, 2011 BL 213002 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). In the court’s view, the debtor provided “a compelling and sound business justification for the reimbursement authority.” Id. at *12.

Facts

In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.