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 27

City of Detroit files Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition challenges ahead

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2013

On the afternoon of July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed its highly anticipated petition for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code in the

Court holds that San Bernardino is eligible to file for Chapter 9

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 24 2013

On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California ruled that the City of San Bernardino is eligible for

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 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

S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court continues to construe Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions narrowly

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 7 2011

In two recent decisions, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has interpreted narrowly certain of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions

Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York prohibits triangular setoff provided for in safe harbored contract

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2011

On October 4, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a contractual right of a triangular (non-mutual) setoff was unenforceable in bankruptcy, even though the contract was safe harbored

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

U.S. district court affirms Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision in SemCrude prohibiting triangular setoff

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 25 2010

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called "triangular", or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates

Lehman bankruptcy court rules safe harbors do not override setoff mutuality requirement

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 6 2010

On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code

Lehman bankruptcy court holds ISDA swap counterparty in violation of automatic staycounterparty seeks modification

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2009

In a recent ruling from the bench, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that Metavante Corporation’s suspension of payments under an outstanding swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) was not safe harbored, and instead violated the automatic stay of section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code