As the seventh anniversary of the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code draws near, the volume of chapter 15 cases commenced in U.S. bankruptcy courts on behalf of foreign debtors has increased rapidly. During that period, there has also (understandably) been a marked uptick in litigation concerning various aspects of the comparatively new legislative regime governing cross-border bankruptcy cases patterned on the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. One such issue was the subject of a ruling recently handed down by a Texas district court. In In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., 470 B.R.
Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.
In a recent decision1 involving Global Aviation Holdings, Inc.
Earlier today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a decision vacating maritime attachments of a vessel on the grounds that the attachments were futile in view of the Vessel Owner's bankruptcy proceedings. In Evridiki Navigation v. The Sanko Steamship Co., Ltd., Civil No. JKB-12-1382 (ECF Doc. # 135)(D. Md. Jul. 27, 2012), a vessel had been attached in Baltimore, Maryland, by use of Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims.
In this memorandum opinion, the Court of Chancery held that plaintiff note holders waived their statutory right to seek appointment of a receiver for a debtor corporation where the notes they purchased were subject to clear language in a “No-Action Clause” of the governing indenture, which prohibited such action unless certain requirements were met.
The Bankruptcy Code in the United States is generally intended to give honest but unfortunate debtors the opportunity for a fresh start. This includes the honest but unfortunate franchisee who attempts to start a franchise but ultimately fails. Generally, if a franchisee files a personal bankruptcy case, the personal liability of the individual who filed bankruptcy is discharged and that individual has the opportunity for a fresh start.
We recently commented here on the standard for reviewing key employee incentive plans (KEIPs) and the approval of the KEIP in the Velo Holdings chapter 11 cases pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 24, Bankruptcy Judge Carla Craig of the Eastern District of New York approved a KERP (a key employee retention plan) in the Global Aviation bankruptcy cases aimed at retaining five employees deemed critical to the conso
The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that, under California law, claims for restitutionary relief are uninsurable as a matter of law. Dobson v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., et al., 2012 WL 2708392 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Additionally, the court held that individual insureds breached a policy’s no-voluntary payment provision by settling an underlying claim without insurer consent and that the insureds’ breach was not excused by the carrier’s failure to advance defense costs.
In Skov v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2102 WL 2549811 (June 8, 2012), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain a demurrer against plaintiff Andrea Skov’s second amended complaint, holding that she had stated a claim for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, which requires a lender to contact a defaulted borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before starting a nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a notice of default.
It is not uncommon for a supplier of goods or services to receive a demand letter or adversary complaint alleging that it received avoidable transfers—commonly known as "preferential payments" or "preferences"—during the 90 days preceding a customer's bankruptcy filing. Such claims arise under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, and can result in a supplier having to return certain payments made during the 90-day preference period.