Section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code requires debtors to either reside or have a domicile, place of business, or property in the United States.  A split of authority exists whether a foreign debtor seeking recognition of its foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code must satisfy these requirements.&nb

“[T]he automatic stay is automatic as applied to a debtor because that is what the statute says.
As to non-debtors, it is relief that is available, but it is not automatic.”
– Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.), August 20, 2015

It’s hard to believe, but until now, the Seventh Circuit has never weighed in on the issue of when a claim arises in a bankruptcy case.  As a result, the Seventh Circuit has had the luxury of sitting back, watching the Third Circuit go from Frenville to 

Key Takeaway:  Second Circuit allows secured
creditors to opt out of chapter 11 and preserve their liens from discharge.

Interested chapter 11 plan investors, beware. A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that even after the chapter 11 plan has been confirmed and substantially consummated and your money has been invested, an appeal can go forward even if a victory for the appellants would change the chapter 11 plan terms on which you relied and substantially diminish the value of your investment.

A series of related decisions issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the ongoing Fairfield Sentry U.S. redeemer litigation — Fairfield Sentry II,¹Fairfield Sentry III,² and Fairfield Sentry IV³ — provide insight into, among other things, the interplay between the safe harbor provision of section 546(e)⁴ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”) and chapter 15.

Introduction

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

When a court reaches a decision in a case, the law of the case doctrine generally provides that parties should not be able to relitigate the same issue in that case, and for the court to adhere to its prior decision.1 The doctrine does not, however, apply to every decision a court reaches. Two recent decisions by Judge Elizabeth Stong in the Brizinova chapter 7 cases in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York explore when the doctrine may or may not apply in bankruptcy cases.

The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.