Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In In re B.C.I. Finances Pty Limited, Judge Sean Lane reiterated the low domestic presence threshold (Domesticity) that a foreign representative must meet when it is petitioning for recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15.
This past April, in In re B.C.I. Finances Pty Limited, 583 B.R. 288 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), Judge Sean Lane reiterated the low domestic presence threshold (Domesticity) that a foreign representative must meet when it is petitioning for recognition of a foreign proceeding under Chapter 15. While Judge Lane’s decision was consistent with a developing body of case law that has generally accepted this low Domesticity threshold, it is significant because it: 1) arises out of the Second Circuit, whose precedent requires that the petition for recognition meets the requirements of both Section 1517 and Section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code before it may be granted; and 2) shows that even with the additional Domesticity requirement of Section 109(a), a foreign representative can successfully obtain recognition of a foreign proceeding with only a nominal domestic presence.
By Jacob H. Marshall
How Lenders and Debtors can Minimize UST Fees and Maximize Creditor Recoveries
As predicted in the first part of this article (May, 2018), the new United States Trustee (UST) fee has had a disproportionate effect on middle-market, high-velocity cash flow companies. The best solution is for Congress to revisit the fee structure and refine it to reflect the realities of particular cases and the actual burden on the UST.
By Michael L. Cook
A defendant creditor in a preference suit may offset 1) the amount of later “new value” it sold to the Chapter 11 debtor against 2) the debtor’s earlier preferential payment to the creditor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held.
By Daniel A. Lev
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
The ability of a debtor to reject a restrictive covenant under Section 365 or to sell free and clear of a covenant under Section 363(f) is limited and the obstacles are difficult to surmount. A possible solution, however, may surface if a debtor can demonstrate a change of circumstances under state law.
By Tom McParland
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Sept. 13 upheld a Delaware Bankruptcy Court’s decision to block a Florida-based energy company from collecting a $275 million merger termination fee against the bankruptcy estates of Energy Future Holdings Corp. and a subsidiary.