Between 2008 and 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (the Second Circuit) revisited the circumstances under which it would approve third-party non-debtor releases in Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. Traditionally, the Second Circuit found such releases to be appropriate if the bankruptcy case had certain special — “unique” — circumstances.1 InIn re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52 (2d. Cir.

German legislator finally introduces tax exemption for income resulting from debt waivers in restructuring scenarios with retroactive effect.

Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012)

Recent piece-meal amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act 2003 seem to have cumulated into a restructuring solution that is starting to be considered predictable, quick and fair, especially when compared to the pre-amendment system. With its new restructuring approach, which shares many of the same characteristics as an English Scheme of Arrangement, Spanish companies have finally been given much-needed space and time to develop an appropriate restructuring strategy.

“In chapter 11, a creditor should be able to assert the full amount of any guarantee claim against the debtor without reducing the claim for recoveries against another obligor.”

“Whether the Nortel Senior Notes will be entitled to post-petition interest, and at what rate, in the chapter 11 cases are open questions that may hinge, among other things, on proving solvency of the Nortel chapter 11 debtors.”

While the CIS nations have recently provided a multitude of sizeable restructuring cases, the region’s dominant force, Russia, has stood up reasonably well to lengthy economic decline, economic sanctions and the collapse of oil and gas prices. There are now signs however, that its complex troubles are pushing certain companies towards a restructuring or insolvency position.

Background

When a debtor pays the market cost for goods and services provided to it by third-party vendors, these payments normally cannot be recovered as fraudulent transfers in the U.S. That is because the debtor receives reasonably equivalent value for the payments to its vendors and because the unsuspecting vendors can assert a good faith defense based on the value provided.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Jaffe v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.^,1 recently held that a U.S. bankruptcy court is not required under principles of comity to blindly apply foreign law to assets located in the U.S. of a foreign debtor whose principal insolvency proceeding is outside the U.S. Instead, bankruptcy courts must balance the interests of the affected U.S. parties with the those of the foreign debtor. In this case, the balancing required the application of U.S. law to the foreign debtor’s U.S. assets, not German law as applied in the foreign proceeding.

In its recent decision in Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an entity that meets the definition of a “single real estate” debtor under the Bankruptcy Code may not escape the consequences of such designation simply because it is a subsidiary of a group of companies with integrated and intertwined relationships among them. The decision may provide powerful rights not only to lenders to such entities in general, but could significantly enhance the rights of creditors of real estate owning single purpose entities.