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.

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

If a debtor seeks to sell, pursuant to a 363 sale, real property as to which it is the landlord under an unexpired prepetition lease, can such property be sold “free and clear” of the non-debtor tenant’s leasehold interest?

In re Markus, 607 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) [click for opinion]  

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

On 1 February 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they will formally implement the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Matters ("Guidelines").

On May 8, 2009, the Honourable Madam Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C36, as amended (the “CCAA”) in respect of Gandi Innovations Limited (“Gandi Canada”), Gandi Innovations Holdings LLC (“Gandi Holdings”) and Gandi Innovations LLC (“Gandi Texas”) (collectively, the “Gandi Group”).

The case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), No. 12- 1200, was easily one of the most closely watched bankruptcy cases in many years. Last week’s decision in that case, however, was far less dramatic than  some practitioners feared it might be. The Supreme Court answered two important questions regarding the power of bankruptcy courts that it left open three years ago in Stern v. Marshall.

On September 14th, a Bankruptcy Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of defendants, brokerages through whom the debtor conducted a fraudulent stock lending scheme. The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee cannot avoid as fraudulent transfers funds and stock received by defendants directly from the victims of the scheme, margin interest paid to defendants by the debtor, and cash transfers that the debtor directly deposited into the brokerage accounts in the year prior to the bankruptcy filing.

Defanging Stern v. Marshall¹: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Modifies the Reference of Bankruptcy Matters to Address Issues Resulting from the Supreme Court’s Ruling