A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.

People are generally familiar with the concept that a party’s right to appeal applies to those orders that are “final.” A “final” order is one that resolves or disposes of the disputes between the parties. While an interlocutory order may be appealable at the discretion of the appellate court, the aggrieved party has no absolute right to appeal an order that is not “final.”

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v.

In December 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code was applicable to Chapter 15 cases.  In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir.

Most lawyers are generally familiar with the concept of a floating lien under the Uniform Commercial Code. A secured creditor takes a lien in a collateral category that changes from time to time as items are added or subtracted. A common example is a working capital loan, in which financed inventory is produced and sold, then becoming an account, which is collected to provide the funds to produce new inventory.  A secured creditor may perfect a lien in the changing mass of inventory and receivables, as each category exists from time to time.

The Michigan judge overseeing Detroit’s historic bankruptcy case found today that parties seeking to appeal his order finding the city eligible for bankruptcy protection may proceed directly to the Sixth Circuit.

On March 21st, 2012 the Spanish High Court rendered its Judgment in which stated that credits for supplies accrued before a company has been stated in bankruptcy, have to be paid as preferential credits, this means that they shall have priority over the rest of the credits, in those cases in which the Court who is dealing with the bankruptcy proceedings had ordered the supplier to continue with the respective supply in the interest of the bankrupt company.

In September 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a reclaiming seller rights despite the claimant’s service of a timely written reclamation demand and compliance with a reclamation procedures order and section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

The German Federal Civil Court (BGH) in its decision of 15 April 2010 (IX ZR 188/09) clarified the legal position of holders of preferred stock in insolvency plan proceedings.

Poland’s Supreme Court in a recent ruling found a grant of security for parallel debt to be invalid.