The English Court refused an application by Liquidators to stay English proceedings pending the outcome of similar proceedings in the US.

The Joint Liquidators of a Luxembourg company ("the Company") applied to stay English proceedings that they had brought against private equity investors ("the Defendants") until similar proceedings in the US had been resolved, or for three months to enable the Liquidators to raise finance for the litigation.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2016)

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar

When a creditor seeks equitable relief in a bankruptcy court, must the court always follow common law principles of equity? Not according to several courts, including the Second Circuit. Concluding that the granting of equitable remedies may circumvent the Bankruptcy Code's equitable distribution system, courts have limited the application of equitable remedies in the bankruptcy context.

Two recent Federal appeals court decisions — one issued by the Fifth, the other by the Second Circuit — illustrate the dangers of careless drafting of bankruptcy and reorganization plans. In the Fifth Circuit decision, a drafting error prevented a company reorganized under Chapter 11 from suing the administrators of its property during its bankruptcy for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, thereby potentially depriving its creditors of bankruptcy assets.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing an important issue with respect to the preservation of a debtor's causes of action in a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized debtor lacked standing to pursue certain common-law claims that were based on the pre-confirmation management of the bankruptcy estate's assets.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

In a recent opinion,1 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized that foreign confidentiality statutes do not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence — even though the act of production may be considered a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdiction and subject the party to serious consequences, including imprisonment and fines.

Background