International Trade Compliance (Covering Customs and Other Import Requirements, Export Controls and Sanctions, Trade Remedies, WTO and Anti-Corruption) In This Issue: World Trade Organization (WTO) World Customs Organization (WCO) Other International Matters The Americas - Central America The Americas - North America The Americas - South America Asia-Pacific Europe and Middle East Africa Trade compliance enforcement actions - import, export, IPR, FCPA Newsletters, reports, articles, etc. Webinars, Meetings, Seminars, etc.
Summary
On October 14, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking [USCBP–2016–0065] that, if adopted, would amend the CBP regulations to reflect that official notice of liquidation, suspension of liquidation, and extension of liquidation will be posted electronically on the CBP Web site.
On June 6, 2017, Australian-based mining equipment supplier Emeco Holdings emerged from chapter 15 proceedings in the Southern District of New York following an Australian court’s sanctioning of the company’s scheme of arrangement.
The scheme of arrangement was a component of an innovative, comprehensive restructuring that provided for a three-way merger of three large Australian mining service companies and a restructuring of A$680 million of debt through a debt-for-equity swap, rights offering, and full refinancing.
In In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that claims filed by Lehman employees on account of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are subject to subordination under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Mastan v. Salamon (In re Salamon) that an undersecured creditor with a nonrecourse claim lost the right to assert a deficiency claim under section 1111(b) of the Bankruptcy Code when a senior secured creditor foreclosed on and sold its collateral during the bankruptcy case.
Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2018) [click for opinion]
Third party releases in a chapter 11 plan have become fairly common in the United States. A recent decision by the Delaware District Court in Opt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC), however, questions whether the bankruptcy court has the authority to approve nonconsensual third party releases as part of confirmation of a chapter 11 plan.
Corporations reorganize to reduce costs, eliminate liabilities, improve efficiencies or a combination of all three. Rarely, if ever, does a corporate reorganization accelerate a company’s liabilities or impose new ones, but two recent decisions from federal district courts in New York demonstrate careful planning and care is needed to avoid this undesirable and expensive result.
In December 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor “under this title” to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.