Historically, the interests of landlords whose commercial real estate is occupied by debtors in Chapter 11 proceedings have been generally well protected. Indeed, Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the debtor to timely perform all of its post-petition obligations under its nonresidential leases of real property — most important among those, rent.

On June 28, 2016, Judge Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association, et al.(Adv. Proc. No. 10-03547 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

The COVID-19 pandemic is upending economies globally, causing a wave of unexpected insolvencies. The businesses that remain standing may face the question: will my insolvency or that of my counterparty prevent me from resolving disputes by arbitration?

The short answer is no. However, depending on the jurisdiction, there will be some limitations on what can be decided by arbitration. We have therefore briefly summarized some of the issues and challenges that a party may face under US law in the context of an arbitration arising from its own or an opposing party’s insolvency.

Summary

This briefing summarizes the recent U.S. Bankruptcy Court order establishing bar dates for creditors filing claims in relation to debts owed to them by Lehman Brothers entities in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, this briefing discusses who must file a proof of claim, how to file the proof of claim, and the special requirements for claims in respect of derivative contracts, guarantees and Lehman program securities.

On February 19, 2013, the six-person Review Team appointed by Michigan’s Governor to conduct a detailed financial review of the City of Detroit delivered its report to the Governor. The Report

As a result of the Review Team’s conclusion, the Governor is required to take action under Michigan’s emergency financial manager law by no later than March 21, 2013.  

The following flow chart summarizes the next steps to be taken in the financial review process of the City of Detroit.  

In the first part of this article, we considered the effect of section 365(d)(4) and other Bankruptcy Code sections on retailer debtors and their respective landlords, as well as on how retailer debtors can utilize the holiday sales season to implement a successful reorganization.

Last month, in a significant ruling in the General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied motions to dismiss, as bad faith filings, the bankruptcy cases of 20 purported bankruptcyremote special purpose entity (“SPE”) subsidiary debtors.1

In ABN Amro Bank N.V. v. Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A. (In re Parmalat Finanziara S.p.A.),1 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of an injunction pursuant to former section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code (the precursor to current chapter 15, applicable in crossborder insolvency proceedings), which prevented the beneficiary of a guaranty governed by New York law from asserting its guaranty claim against Italian debtor (and guarantor) Parmalat S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) in the United States.

In CDI Trust v. U.S. Electronics, Inc. (In re Communications Dynamics, Inc.),1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed the issue of whether a rejection damages claim is subject to setoff against a pre-petition debt owed by the creditor to the debtor. The Court found that a rejection damages claim should be treated as if it arose pre-petition, and that the provisions of section 553 permitted, rather than prevented, the setoff of the rejection damages claim against the pre-petition debt.

Background

On Nov. 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. issued a groundbreaking decision under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides the mechanics for U.S. bankruptcy courts to deal with cross-border insolvency proceedings. Although deference to judgments of foreign courts is the norm under Chapter 15, in this instance the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce a court-approved Mexican plan of reorganization on the ground that it contained non-consensual non-debtor releases of noteholders’ claims against the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.