Harris v. Viegelahn, No. 14-400 (previously described in the December 15, 2014, Docket Report)

Did you know that dispositions of property of a solvent company made after the commencement of a winding-up will unlikely be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that the disposition is not in the interests of the company?

The Supreme Court yesterday issued its decision in the long-running case concerning financial support directions (“FSDs”) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator to various companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups. The case considered where a company's obligations under an FSD should rank in relation to its other debts if the company was insolvent when the FSD was issued.

On April 19, 2012, the Lehman bankruptcy court handed down its decision on the long-pending motion to dismiss filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in response to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s $8.6 billion avoidance action against it. The action sought to recover the value of collateral taken by JP Morgan in its role as principal clearing bank to Lehman in the run-up to the Lehman insolvency.

BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc & others [2011] EWCA Civ 227

The Court of Appeal has allowed companies around the country to breathe a solvent sigh of relief, as it has held that the so-called “balance sheet” test of insolvency in s123(2) Insolvency Act 1996 is intended to apply where a company has reached a “point of no return” rather than being used as a “mechanistic, even artificial, reason for permitting a creditor to present a petition to wind up a company”.  

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.

Em sessão realizada em 27 de abril de 2022, a Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) julgou o Recurso Especial nº 1655705/SP, cujo acórdão recém-divulgado impôs a forma de pagamento fixada em Plano de Recuperação Judicial (PRJ) a determinado credor que não fez parte da recuperação judicial e pretendia cobrar o seu crédito individualmente.

In a somewhat unexpected development given his recent appointment to a second 14-year term a mere 5 years ago, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York announced that he intends to retire as of June 30, 2022.

On 26 March 2021, Mr Justice Zacaroli of the English High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by gategroup Guarantee Limited (Gategroup), following approval at two creditors' meetings convened pursuant to a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Zacaroli on 17 February 2021.

Case Name and Number: Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357

Introduction: In an 8-0 opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that a creditor’s passive retention of property properly seized from a debtor pre-bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).