An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

As we previewed last week, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently handed General Motors (“New GM”) an enormous victory that may end up shielding the company from up to $10 billion in successor liability claims.

During the bankruptcy cycle following the recession of 2001, numerous debtors – notably airlines such as US Airways and United Air Lines, Inc. – undertook “distress terminations” of their ERISA-qualified defined benefit pension plans, which are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC found itself holding large general unsecured claims arising from significant underfunding of pension plans insured by the PBGC as a result of these terminations. Efforts by the PBGC to obtain either administrative priority or secured status for these claims invariably failed.1

In December 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code was applicable to Chapter 15 cases.  In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir.

Summary

Following the US case of Morning Mist Holdings when a Court of Appeals decided that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the Chapter 15 case petition, we look again at the case of Kemsley where the US bankruptcy court held that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the filing of the UK bankruptcy. We consider whether this could have affected the outcome of the Kemsley case and look at the factors used by the English and US Courts to interpret an individual debtor’s COMI.

Background

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

A popular line of thinking among bankruptcy practitioners and commentators holds that substantive consolidation – the combining of assets and liabilities of a debtor and another debtor or non-debtor entity to satisfy creditor claims against both entities ratably from the resulting pool – is an equitable remedy of judicial invention with no specific foundation in the Bankruptcy Code.

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.

Introduction

Courts struggled this year to find a balance between state-licensed cannabis activity and the federal right to seek bankruptcy protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During 2019, we had the first circuit-level opinion in the bankruptcy/cannabis space that appeared to open the door to bankruptcy courts, albeit slightly. We also had lower court opinions slamming that door shut. Below, we look at a few of the most important decisions issued throughout 2019 and analyze the current state of the law.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ Garvin Decision