InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

"Safe harbors" in the Bankruptcy Code designed to insulate nondebtor parties to financial contracts from the consequences that normally ensue when a counterparty files for bankruptcy have been the focus of a considerable amount of scrutiny as part of evolving developments in the Great Recession. One of the most recent developments concerning this issue in the courts was the subject of a ruling handed down by the New York bankruptcy court presiding over the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases. In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., Judge James M.

As part of the overhaul of bankruptcy laws in 1978, Congress for the first time included the definition of "claim" as part of the Bankruptcy Code. A few years later, in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), the Third Circuit became the first court of appeals to examine the scope of this new definition in the context of the automatic stay.

A creditor’s ability in a bankruptcy case to exercise rights that it has under applicable law to set off an obligation it owes to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor to it, thereby converting its unsecured claim to a secured claim to the extent of the setoff, is an important entitlement.

Participants in the multibillion-dollar market for distressed claims and securities had ample reason to keep a watchful eye on developments in the bankruptcy courts during each of the last three years. Controversial rulings handed down in 2005 and 2006 by the bankruptcy court overseeing the chapter 11 cases of failed energy broker Enron Corporation and its affiliates had traders scrambling for cover due to the potential that acquired claims/debt could be equitably subordinated or even disallowed, based upon the seller’s misconduct.

Ogier has successfully applied for the recognition by the Royal Court of Jersey of English fixed charge receivers.  The decision of the Court in Re Estates and General Developments Limited¹ is the first time that such an appointment has been recognised in Jersey.

RUBIN V EUROFINANCE SA

New Cap Re v Grant  

[2012] UKSC 46

The Statutory Position:

The provisions governing the recognition of a foreign (including a UK) insolvency office holder under Jersey law are found in Article 49 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the 'Law') and Article 6 of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Order 2006 (the 'Order').

During the current economic downturn, a number of financially distressed franchisees either have filed or may file for bankruptcy protection to restructure their financial obligations. As a result, franchisors should familiarize themselves with some bankruptcy basics before they are confronted with the situation.

What Happens If One of Our Franchisees Declares Bankruptcy?

Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald ruled last week that a debtor's insurance policies are assets of the estate and, therefore, can be properly transferred to a § 524(g) trust notwithstanding any applicable anti-assignment clauses. In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc., 01-10578 (Bankr. D. Del. March 19, 2008).