The Bankruptcy Protector

Almost two years ago, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) was enacted. While the provisions regarding the new Subchapter V reorganization received the most press (streamlined chapter 11 for businesses with debts of no more than $7,500,000), the SBRA also included other important changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Among these additional changes was an increase in the venue threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) to $25,000.00 as follows:

In a recent opinion from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the Dura Automotive Systems bankruptcy case,[1] Judge Karen Owens held that executory contracts cannot be impliedly assumed through course of conduct by the parties, under binding Third Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that a minority of courts outside of the Third Circuit have allowed it

In In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C., 2021 WL 1603608 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York addressed the interaction between purported setoff rights arising under investment agreements governed by Islamic law and the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbors protecting the exercise of non-debtors' rights under financial contracts.

On July 29, 2021, GBG USA, Inc., along with several affiliates, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Lead Case No. 21-11369). The ultimate parent company of GBG USA, Inc.

Madoff

In the groundbreaking recent decision in Re Samson Paper Company Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2021] HKCFI 2151 (“Samson”), the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Hong Kong court”) has for the first time issued a letter of request to a court in mainland China under the new cross-border mutual recognition, assistance and cooperation arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China (the “Mainland”) in relation to corporate insolvency and restructuring matters (the “Cooperation Arrangement”), which took effect on May 14, 2021.

. The debtor did not notify a tort claimant of his chapter 11 filing. The claimant filed an action against the debtor after the bankruptcy filing. The debtor did not respond, and the claimant obtained a default judgment. The debtor’s case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Later, the debtor filed a second chapter 11 case, which was converted to chapter 7. The claimant sought retroactive stay r

In cases under both chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and its repealed predecessor, section 304, U.S. bankruptcy courts have routinely recognized and enforced orders of foreign bankruptcy and insolvency courts as a matter of international comity. However, U.S. bankruptcy courts sometimes disagree over the precise statutory authority for granting such relief, because the provisions of chapter 15 are not particularly clear on this point in all cases.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court’s order confirming a farm debtor’s chapter 12 plan, concluding that the bankruptcy court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the value of a bank’s collateral where the collateral was disputed. The Panel also concluded that the bank needed to file a proof of claim.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, July 15, 2021