Bankruptcy Code protects certain Ponzi scheme payments. The trustee for debtor Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities (BLMIS) sued to avoid fictitious profits paid by BLMIS to hundreds of customers over the life of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The defendant customers moved to dismiss certain of these avoidance claims pursuant to 11 USC Sec. 546(e), which shields from recovery securities-related payments made by a stockbroker. The trial court agreed that Sec. 546(e) barred the claims, dismissing them, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Directive 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 ("Directive on restructuring and insolvency")

It used to be the case that mortgage creditors could rest easy knowing they held a mortgage, and that they would be repaid with the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged asset, even in the event of an insolvency.

In Budimex SA (C224/18), the CJEU was asked by a Polish Court to determine the time of supply in relation to a construction contract where no invoice was issued in accordance with articles 63 and 66 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD), which provide that the chargeable event for VAT purposes is when the services are supplied.

Following a lengthy process which started in 2012 aiming to reform the Romanian insolvency framework as part of a wider judicial reformation program, the New Insolvency Law (Law no. 85/2014 regarding the prevention of insolvency and the insolvency proceedings) entered into force on 28 July 2014.

On 29 October 2018, HM Treasury published a consultation paper on a breathing space scheme and a statutory debt repayment plan, which were both part of the government’s 2017 manifesto commitments.

An opinion issued in connection with the bankruptcy cases of Lyondell Chemical Company and its affiliates may have significant implications for shareholders who receive payments in connection with a leveraged buyout when the underlying company subsequently files for bankruptcy. 

Creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor asserting “state law, constructive fraudulent [transfer] claims … are preempted by Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e),” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 29, 2016. In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2016 WL ____, at *1 (2d Cir. March 29, 2016), as corrected.

A creditor’s guaranty claim “arising from equity investments in a debtor’s affiliate should be treated the same as equity investments in the debtor itself — i.e., … subordinated to the claims of general  creditors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2015. In re American Housing Foundation, 2015 WL 1918854, at *8 (5th Cir. April 28, 2015).

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, applying the swap agreement safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") §546(g), dismissed a Chapter 11 litigation trustee's state law fraudulent transfer complaint against a bank on June 11, 2013. Whyte v. Barclays Bank, PLC, 2013 WL2489925 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013).