October 17, 2013, will mark the eighth anniversary of the enactment of chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as part of the comprehensive U.S. bankruptcy-law reforms implemented in 2005. Chapter 15, which governs cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency cases, is patterned after the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “Model Law”), a framework of legal principles formulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) in 1997 to deal with the rapidly expanding volume of international insolvency cases.

Recent Developments

The ongoing global financial crisis has resulted in a number of debt restructuring transactions as a result of companies being unable to meet with their debt obligations. In distressed situations, issuers typically seek investor consent to amend existing terms and conditions, often to relax covenants, reschedule payments, limit events of default and remove restrictions on raising further capital.

Putting it mildly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Stern v. Marshall, 132 S. Ct. 56 (2011), cast a wrench into the day-to-day operation of U.S. bankruptcy courts scrambling to deal with a deluge of challenges—strategic or otherwise—to the scope of their “core” jurisdiction to issue final orders and judgments on a wide range of disputes. In Stern, the Court ruled that, to the extent that 28 U.S.C.

Postconfirmation liquidation and litigation trusts have become an important mechanism in a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate’s arsenal, allowing for the resolution of claims and interests without needlessly delaying confirmation in the interim. The specter of postconfirmation litigation may seem unremarkable. Section 1123(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a plan may provide for retention or enforcement by the reorganized debtor, the trustee, or a representative of the estate of any claim or interest belonging to the estate.

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.

What should have been the best economic news of 2010 was largely obscured by the deluge of bad news dominating world headlines. The latter included tidings of chronically high unemployment; a continuing malaise in the U.S. housing market; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; debt crises precipitating the implementation of austerity measures in Britain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Ireland (to name but a few), as well as countless state and local governments in the U.S.; a sharp escalation of food prices worldwide; a deepening U.S.

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.

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.

In a judgment of November 29, 2007 that is of particular interest to financial institutions involved in asset-based lending, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) allayed concerns that a global assignment (Globalzession)—the assignment of all existing and future trade receivables to a lender to secure loans—would not survive the insolvency of the respective originator.[1] This decision was eagerly awaited because various judgments of German Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) had raised concerns lately that the security interest over receivables created in the last th