Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for a foreign debtor or representative in non-U.S. insolvency proceedings to protect such debtor’s U.S. assets from U.S. creditors’ collection actions or to stay any litigation commenced in the U.S. The ultimate goal in a chapter 15 proceeding is to preserve the value of the assets of the foreign debtor for the benefit of all its creditors globally.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

Is anyone ready for a test on bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction?  For the second time in a week, the Sixth Circuit addressed its appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy appeals, this time in the context of orders denying the substantive consolidation of two separate chapter 7 bankruptcy estates, In re Cyberco Holdings and Teleservices Group.   On the heels of its decision in Lindsey v.

In September 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a reclaiming seller rights despite the claimant’s service of a timely written reclamation demand and compliance with a reclamation procedures order and section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).

The Ruling

A recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware further puts into doubt so-called bankruptcy blocking tactics. And the opinion from In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, No. 16-11247, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2241 (Bankr. D. Del.

Maple Bank GmbH (“Maple”) has operated in Frankfurt, Germany since 1994. The bank acted in the business areas of equity and fixed income trading, repos and securities lending, deposits, structured products and institutional sales. Maple has branches in Germany, Netherlands and Canada and subsidiaries in U.S., U.K. and the Cayman islands. It is part of the Maple Financial Group Inc., a privately held, global financial organisation based in Canada.

Most loan contracts include provisions allowing the collection of attorneys’ fees in the event the borrower defaults.  These attorney fee provisions are routinely enforced in collection suits brought in state courts.

Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in In re TPG Troy, LLC, 2015 U.S. App.