When a creditor seeks equitable relief in a bankruptcy court, must the court always follow common law principles of equity? Not according to several courts, including the Second Circuit. Concluding that the granting of equitable remedies may circumvent the Bankruptcy Code's equitable distribution system, courts have limited the application of equitable remedies in the bankruptcy context.

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

Bankruptcy can provide important advantages to companies considering M&A activity today. M&A purchases of bankrupt companies obviously often feature significantly depressed valuations and a small universe of potentially viable purchasers.

M&A activity that is part of the bankruptcy process will prioritize speed and efficiency, offering a number of potentially important benefits over the traditional merger process, including:

On 8 November 2017, the High Court released its decision in Re Attilan Group Ltd [2017] SGHC 283 (the "Attilan" case). The decision is interesting as it marks the first time the High Court had the opportunity to hear arguments on section 211E of the Companies Act (the "Act") on super priority for rescue financing.

13 ноября 2015 года был подписан Закон РК «О внесении изменений и дополнений в некоторые законодательные акты Республики Казахстан по вопросам реабилитации и банкротства» (далее – «Закон»), положения которого введены в действие 29 ноября 2015 года. Закон предусматривает поправки в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РК, Налоговый кодекс РК, Закон РК «О реабилитации и банкротстве» и Закон РК «Об исполнительном производстве и статусе судебных исполнителей».

PwC, the administrators in the Lehman Brothers administration in the UK, have made several applications to the Court seeking directions on their approach to the distribution of clients’ money and assets. On 29 February 2012 the Supreme Court gave judgment on issues that are central to the interpretation and application of the rules for the protection of client money made by the Financial Services Authority. The issues raised are ones that have divided judicial opinion.

The rejection of collective bargaining agreements or modification of retiree benefits under Bankruptcy Code §§ 1113 and 1114, respectively, were again of central importance in a number of airline cases.

In Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, the Supreme Court held that federal bankruptcy law does not automatically disallow claims for post-petition attorneys' fees incurred by a prepetition unsecured creditor simply because such fees are incurred in litigating issues arising under the Bankruptcy Code. The Court, however, left open the issue whether such claims may be disallowed on the basis that the attorneys' fees were incurred post-petition.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements: