On September 26, 2014, in the Farnum case (Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014)) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Bankruptcy Code section 363 review applied to a transfer of a Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) claim held by an off-shore entity in foreign liquidation proceedings recognized in the United States. The decision is significant for two reasons.

Swiss Investigating Magistrate Entitled to U.S. Documents

With several billions of dollars ultimately at stake, the Second Circuit has affirmed that Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a safe-harbor protecting certain securities-related payments from bankruptcy “claw backs,” barred Irving Picard, Trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (“BLMIS”), from asserting all but a limited category of avoidance and recovery claims. In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec.

In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed  its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a  safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be  attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers.

In In re BGI, Inc. f/k/a/ Borders Group, Inc.,1 the Second Circuit recently held that the doctrine of equitable mootness — a doctrine that permits appellate courts to refrain from hearing bankruptcy appeals relating to plan confirmation when it would be “inequitable” to do so – applies in liquidations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. This ruling extends the doctrine from Chapter 11 reorganizations, in which it has traditionally been applied in the Second Circuit, to liquidations.

On October 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing as equitably moot appeals filed by three individuals (the “Appellants”) in the chapter 11 case of In re BGI Inc. f/k/a Borders Group, Inc.

The ability of a foreign debtor to avail itself of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the automatic stay, with respect to its property located within the United States is one of the most fundamental and valuable tools available to foreign debtors with domestically located property. When a foreign debtor obtains “recognition” of its principal insolvency proceeding by U.S.

On September 26, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, overturning decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that the Bankruptcy Court was required to review under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code the transfer of a claim by a chapter 15 debtor with a recognized foreign main proceeding pending in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”).1     In a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in which a foreign main proceeding has been recognized, section 1520(a)(2) of the Bankr

In December 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor "under this title" to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Sept. 26, 2014, held that a U.S. bankruptcy court was required to conduct a full review of a foreign debtor’s sale of property “within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” relying on the “plain” language of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) Section 1520(a)(2) (“section 363 … [applies] … to a transfer of … property that is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to the same extent that the section … would apply to property of … an estate.”). In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 2014 WL 4783370, *4-5 (2d Cir.