A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank's motion to compel arbitration of a debtor's asserted violation of the court's discharge injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, 20 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Finding a purported "inherent conflict between arbitration of [the debtor's] claim and the Bankruptcy Code," the Second Circuit reasoned that the bankruptcy court "properly considered the conflicting policies in accordance with law." Id., quoting In re United States Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 641 (2d Cir.

The Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “requires the use of replacement value rather than a hypothetical [foreclosure] value … that the reorganization is designed to avoid,” held a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 26, 2017.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

A federal “secured tax claim takes priority over [a professional’s] claim to fees” in an aborted Chapter 11 case, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Jan. 26, 2016. In re Anderson, 2016 WL 308590, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2016).

Glitnir hf. (“Glitnir”) has announced that as of the end of day on Sept. 11, 2015 (“Transfer Cut-Off Time”), it will no longer be processing Claim Transfer Request Forms (“CTRFs”) or issuing any Notices of Successful Transfers (“NOSTs”). Parties to unsettled claims trades that require assignment of title must submit their CTRFs to Glitnir’s transfer agent, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, or Epiq Systems Limited (“Epiq”) before the end of day on Friday, Sept. 11, 2015.

On Dec. 8, 2014 the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “Commission”) issued its 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations (the “Report”), proposing numerous changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”).

The United States Supreme Court, on June 9, 2014, unanimously held that certain “core” proceedings (e.g., fraudulent transfer suits ) could still be litigated in the bankruptcy court, but only if that court’s proposed fact findings and legal conclusions are subject to de novo review by the district court. Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 2014 WL 2560461 (U.S. Sup. Court, June 9, 2014).

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, applying the swap agreement safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") §546(g), dismissed a Chapter 11 litigation trustee's state law fraudulent transfer complaint against a bank on June 11, 2013. Whyte v. Barclays Bank, PLC, 2013 WL2489925 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013).

A settlement has been announced in the Tronox Securities Litigation,^[1] making it one of the first cases where the failure to publicly disclose environmental liabilities has resulted in a substantial settlement.

CURRENTLY, NEGOTIATION and documentation of claims trades remain largely unregulated, with only limited oversight from bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Generally, the bankruptcy court’s, or the claims agent’s, involvement in claims trading is ministerial, i.e., maintaining the claims register and recording transfers if the form complies with the rule. Only if there is an objection to a claims transfer does the bankruptcy court become involved in the substance of a transfer.