We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 26

City of Stockton: Bankruptcy Court holds that Rule 9019 does not apply to Chapter 9 debtors

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2013

On January 30, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held that, pursuant to section 904 of the

Fourth Circuit examines swap agreements subject to Bankruptcy Code safe harbors

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2009

In Hutson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit interpreted the definition of “swap agreement” under the Bankruptcy Code

Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision in SemCrude prohibits triangular setoff in absence of safe harbor

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2009

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a nondebtor cannot effect a "triangular" setoff of the amounts owed between it and three affiliated debtors, even if the parties had entered into pre-petition contracts that expressly contemplated multiparty setoff

Third Circuit upholds use of discounted cash flow method under Bankruptcy Code Section 562 in In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 2 2011

On February 16, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a discounted cash flow analysis constituted "a commercially reasonable determinant of value" for purposes of section 562(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code

Detroit bankruptcy court refuses stay of Chapter 9 eligibility hearing under Stern v. Marshall

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2013

On September 26, 2013, Judge Steven W. Rhodes of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the Official Committee of

Court approves extension of the automatic stay in Detroit’s chapter 9

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 26 2013

On July 24, 2013, Judge Steven W. Rhodes of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved the City of Detroit's motion to extend

Delaware’s not so safe harbors: Third Circuit Bankruptcy Court declines to rule that a payment on a letter of credit is an avoidance-proof “settlement payment”

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 17 2012

On March 26, 2012, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware refused to rule that, as a matter of law, payments made to satisfy a debtor’s obligations under a letter of credit constitute “settlement payments” protected from avoidance under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code

American Home court denies bank’s deficiency claim by accepting discounted cash flow valuation of mortgage loan portfolio subject to repurchase agreement

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2009

A Delaware bankruptcy court recently delivered the first decision applying section 562 of the Bankruptcy Code to a claim based on the termination of a repurchase agreement

Court holds that Stockton is eligible to file for chapter 9

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 3 2013

On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the City of Stockton qualified to file for protection

Stern v. Marshall: how big is it?

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 14 2011

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that a Bankruptcy Judge lacked constitutional authority to issue a final ruling on state law counterclaims by a debtor against a claimant