In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 13, 2012)
CSMS# 16-000814 dated September 13, 2016, released scenarios (updated on September 8, 2016) to the Hanjin Shipping Co. bankruptcy filing. Hanjin Shipping Co., one of the world’s largest shipping lines, recently filed for court receivership in South Korea. In anticipation of possible disruptions due to Hanjin Shipping vessels or cargo arriving to U.S.
U.S.
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Arcapita, Bank. B.S.C. v. Bahr. Islamic Bank, No. 15-cv-03828 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) [click for opinion]
Recent development
In many decisions involving US chapter 15 cases, the bankruptcy court’s principal focus will be on what is the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI). An ancillary issue is whether it is appropriate to create COMI to obtain the benefit of a more favorable jurisdiction to restructure a company’s debt (otherwise known as “COMI shifting”).
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Motors Liquidation Company is yet the latest case to show the difficulty in using the bankruptcy process to resolve tort claims.[1]
The Background Basics
Holders of unclaimed property should take note that Illinois’ state budget bill, SB 9, enacted July 7, 2017, includes significant changes to Illinois’ unclaimed property law. Just days before it was enacted, the Illinois General Assembly amended SB 9 to include a modified version of the Uniform Law Commission’s 2016 Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. Illinois’ new unclaimed property law will become effective January 1, 2018 and will repeal the state’s current unclaimed property law, the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act.
On January 31, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals authorized a court-appointed Receiver to avoid arbitration clauses contained in employment and employment-related agreements.[1] While, at first glance, the Court’s decision not to compel a non-signatory to arbitration appears unremarkable, in fact the decision reflects how far the Court was willing to go in order to protect a Receiver’s choice of a judicial forum.
Third Circuit holds that State-specific protections in favor of oil and gas producers did not apply under Article 9 of the UCC