On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied Thelma McCoy’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, passing up a golden opportunity to bring uniformity to the “important and recurring question” of how to determine the sort of “undue hardship” that qualifies a debtor for a discharge of student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Executive Summary

In its ruling on Wednesday 27 July in the matter of Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Lte & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the appeal by Lehman Brothers Special Finance Inc. ("LSF") relating to the validity of an alleged anti-deprivation provision known as a 'flip' provision which, has the effect of altering the payment priority order as a result of a bankruptcy of the relevant swap counterparty, in this case Lehman Brothers.

On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.

There is seemingly, in the opinion of a great number of bankruptcy courts, a conflict between the United States Bankruptcy Code requirements that a debtor reorganize or liquidate “in good faith,” the federal Controlled Substances Act [21 USC § 841] (“CSA”) prohibiting, among other things, the distribution or sale of marijuana, and the laws of over half of the states in the country that authorize the sale of marijuana for medical and other purposes.

It may be fair to say that non-US entities involved in a chapter 15 case, the mechanism through which US courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings, do not anticipate having to litigate claims raised in the chapter 15 case outside of the bankruptcy court. This may be due in large part to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), an abstention statute applicable in chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings.

On April 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a landmark 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments to prevent the avoidance in bankruptcy of $8.3 billion in payments made to the shareholders of Tribune Co. as part of its 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO").

BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 20 • NO. 3 MAY–JUNE 2021 IN THIS ISSUE 1 First Impressions: Third Circuit Scuttles Triangular Setoff in Bankruptcy 4 Should Equitable Mootness Bar Appeals Only of Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation Orders? 7 Debate Intensifies on Substantial Contribution Claims in Chapter 7 Cases 10 Bankruptcy Court Recharacterizes Purported Loan as Equity 14 In Brief: “Failing” Delaware Corporation Can Transfer Assets to Creditors in Lieu of Foreclosure Without Shareholder Consent 15 U.S.

In connection with recognition, PT Bakrie’s foreign representative sought an order from the Bankruptcy Court enforcing its Indonesian PKPU Plan. The foreign representative argued that the plan provided a discharge of the debtor, and all other parties, from any liability in respect of the intercompany loans at issue. By seeking enforcement of the PKPU Plan, the foreign representative effectively sought a release of non-debtor third parties from liability to the Objecting Noteholders and others, including in respect of the approximate $161 million stipulated judgment.

On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und