In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

The Bankruptcy Code creates a rebuttable presumption that a proof of claim is prima facie evidence of the claim's validity and amount. Courts disagree, however, over whether that presumption also applies in a proceeding to determine the secured amount of the creditor's claim. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California weighed in on this issue in In re Bassett, 2019 WL 993302 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2019).

For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.

In Short

The Situation: Section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (WA) ("Act")provides that if a creditor and a company in liquidation have mutual dealings, the creditor must offset any sum the creditor owes to the company in liquidation against debt owed by the company.

The Question: Does the existence of a third party security interest over circulating assets (floating charge) which are intended to be set off against other debts prevent the dealings from being "mutual"?

On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated ruling resolving a long-standing circuit split over the scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s "safe harbor" provision exempting certain securities transaction payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers. In Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 BL 65569, No. 16-784 (U.S. Feb.

In Short

The Situation: In In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., secured noteholders argued that replacement notes distributed to them under a cram-down chapter 11 plan should bear market-rate interest rather than the lower formula rate proposed in the plan and that they were entitled to a make-whole premium.

In Feltman v. Noor Staffing Grp., LLC (In re Corp. Res. Servs. Inc.), 564 B.R. 196 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017), the bankruptcy court considered whether section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code creates a right of setoff when no such right is available under applicable nonbankruptcy law. The court concluded that section 553 does not create an independent federal right of setoff, but merely preserves any such right that exists under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson), 2017 BL 101650 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the distinction between constitutional mootness (a jurisdictional issue that precludes court review of an appeal) and equitable mootness (which allows a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to hear an appeal under certain circumstances). The Eleventh Circuit ruled that an appeal from an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not constitutionally moot because an "actual case or controversy" existed.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2016 involving issues of bankruptcy law.

On June 9, 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals, in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2016 BL 184648 (N.Y. June 9, 2016), reversed a lower court decision, consistent with the overwhelming majority of federal court decisions, that the common interest doctrine under New York law is not limited to communications made in connection with pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.