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.
On May 25, 2012, Residential Capital LLC (“ResCap”) filed a complaint in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to extend the automatic stay over 27 MBS lawsuits against it, its affiliates, and its executives while it undergoes bankruptcy restructuring. ResCap alleges that all of the lawsuits against its non-debtor affiliates are inextricably connected to the debtor affiliates, and that such lawsuits will drain the debtors’ estates by forcing those entities to undergo extensive discovery and face significant indem
On May 4, 2012, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York held that the Bankruptcy Court has the injunctive power to enforce the automatic stay against entities falling within the Bankruptcy Court’s in personam jurisdiction, and that, in this case, the enforcement of the automatic stay did not violate interests of comity. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec., LLC), No. 11 Civ. 8629 (JPO), 2012 WL 1570859 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012).
In re Vitro, S.A.B de C.V v. ACP Master, Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (N.D. Tex. 2011), is a decision by a bankruptcy court but contains discussion of the issue often arising in contentious international litigation: attempts to enjoin proceedings in other countries in favor of proceedings in the U.S., or attempts to enjoin proceedings in the U.S.
Section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a worldwide estate comprising all of the legal or equitable interests of the debtor, “wherever located,” held by the debtor as of the filing date.1 The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, in turn, applies “to all entities” and protects the debtor’s property and the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by barring “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate . . .
In December 2010, the Trustee obtained a $5 billion settlement for BLMIS customers with allowed claims. Plaintiffs in putative class actions challenged the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision holding that the class actions violated the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code and were otherwise enjoined. Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the settlement and the Bankruptcy Court’s decision finding that the class actions were duplicative or derivative of the Trustee’s action and thus were void ab initio un
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inAT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that California’s rule against compulsory arbitration of claims for public injunctive relief was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Court also underscored the key points of an enforceable arbitration clause. Kilgore v. KeyBank (March 7, 2012).
Case Background
Bankruptcy Courts may be courts of equity, but a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that even equity can’t trump the plain words of a settlement agreement.
A New York trial court recently held that affiliates and subsidiaries of a bankrupt Mexican holding company were liable as guarantors on indentures issued by the corporation, despite ongoing Mexican bankruptcy proceedings that could potentially discharge their liability under Mexican law. Wilmington Trust, National Assoc. v. Vitro Automotriz, S.A. De C.V., et al., No. 652303/11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011).
The Bottom Line: