The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

The existing jurisdictional conflict¹ between US bankruptcy courts under the Federal Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding required approvals for a debtor in bankruptcy to reject an executory Federal Power Act (FPA)-jurisdictional agreement has also been asserted by FERC with respect to Natural Gas Act (NGA)-jurisdictiona

On April 16, 2013, in Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.),¹ the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision informing fundamental concepts of cross-border insolvency law as implemented pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the case of In re: Exide Technologies, decided on June 1, 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed two lower court decisions and held that a 1991 agreement between Exide Technologies and EnerSys Delaware Inc., which included a license to EnerSys for use of the “EXIDE” trademark, is not an executory contract that can be rejected by Exide in bankruptcy proceedings.

In Houston, oil is king. But this year, several energy titans are among a troubling and growing corporate list turning to bankruptcy protection. Even if the economy rebounds unexpectedly, experts expect the sharp increase in bankruptcy proceedings to continue, at least for the remainder of 2020.

Bankruptcy Boom Creates E-Discovery Issues

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,¹ in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.

On 18 May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its associated debtors (together, the "Debtors") filed a further six omnibus objections to claims filed in their Chapter 11 proceedings with the US Bankruptcy Court (the "Objections"). The Objections contain orders prepared by the Debtors on behalf of the US Bankruptcy Court which, if granted, will enable the Debtors to disallow and expunge the claims identified in each of the Objections from the register of claims.

The below chart summarizes the modifications to certain protocol and procedures of major US Bankruptcy Courts in light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak. At the moment, the chart includes the US Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Southern District of Texas. Mayer Brown will continue to monitor the situation in the days and weeks to come, and will update the chart accordingly.

BANKRUPTCY COURT

STATUS

ACCESS & ENTRY RESTRICTIONS

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”

Overview