In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) granted protection over the U.S. assets of a Cayman Islands exempted company in liquidation. See Revised Order Recognizing Foreign Proceeding (the “Order”), In re Saad Investments Finance Company (No.5) Limited (“SIFCO5”), Case No. 09-13985 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 17, 2009) (Docket No. 47). The company, SIFCO5, is subject to official liquidation proceedings in the Cayman Islands, which the Bankruptcy Court found was eligible for relief under chapter 15 of the U.S.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of Chapter 15 protection for the U.S. assets of two Cayman Islands hedge funds (the “Funds”) (previously reported in SRZ’s Sept. 19, 2007, Alert, “Cayman Hedge Funds Liquidators’ Request for Chapter 15 Protection Denied by Bankruptcy Court”). See Civ. Case No. 07-8730 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008) (the “Decision”).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently awarded an oversecured lender post-petition interest on the full amount of its secured claim at the default rate set forth in the lender’s contract (19%) plus compound (PIK) interest up to the aggregate rate of 25% (the maximum rate allowable under New York State usury laws). In re Urban Communicators PCS Limited Partnership, et al., 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4062 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 12/11/07) (Gerber, B.J.).

Funds' assets in the U.S. has been denied by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. See 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2949, *26 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30 , 2007). The Funds were being liquidated in the Cayman Islands, but the bankruptcy court held that they were not eligible for Chapter 15 relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") because the liquidations were not pending in a country where the Funds had their "center of main interests" or an "establishment" for the conduct of business.

Two courts have added to the murky case law addressing a bankruptcy trustee’s ability to recover a debtor’s tuition payments for their children. In Geltzer v. Oberlin College, et al., 2018 WL 6333588 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018), a New York Bankruptcy Judge permitted a trustee to claw back payments that parents made to their financially independent adult children for college-related costs. In Pergament v. Brooklyn Law School, et al., 2018 WL 6182502 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on April 27, 2014, issued a decision directing the bankruptcy court to dismiss fraudulent transfer complaints brought by the Madoff Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”) trustee against investment funds, their customers and individuals when the trustee failed “plausibly [to] allege that defendant[s] did not act in good faith.” SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 2014 WL 1651952, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. April 27, 2014).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an insider preference complaint by Capmark Financial Group Inc. and its affiliates ("Capmark") seeking to recover a $145 million pre-bankruptcy payment from a lender group. Capmark Financial Group Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 1420243 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 2, 2011, ruled in favor of SRZ client Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., denying Enron’s petition for rehearing in Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., 651 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2011). The court had previously ruled against Enron more than five months ago, holding that its redemptions of commercial paper were “settlement payments” and thus not voidable as preferential or fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 546(e), one of the code’s so-called “safe harbor” provisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Feb. 7, 2011, held that senior creditors could not “gift” part of their reorganization plan recovery to existing shareholders of the debtor.In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 2011) (2-1) (Lynch, J.) (explainingIn re DBSD N. Am., Inc., 627 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary opinion)). Its extensive 62-page opinion explained the court’s previous two-page summary ruling of Dec.

In the recent decision ofSpizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 2017 WL 75750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.