In This Issue:
The Year in Bankruptcy: 2025
A brief chronicle of the year's notable developments in corporate bankruptcy and restructuring, including business bankruptcy filings, significant court rulings, and legislative developments. [read more …]
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Denies Chapter 15 Recognition of Maltese Liquidation Absent Evidence of Meaningful Activities Supporting Finding of COMI or Establishment in Malta
In In re Geden Holdings, Ltd., No. 25-90138, 2025 WL 2484883 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2025), stay pending appeal denied, No. 25-90138, 2026 WL 97993 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2026), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that, for purposes of recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, although a foreign debtor may have had its center of main interests ("COMI") or an establishment in Malta when a liquidation proceeding was commenced for it in a Maltese court in 2017, the absence of any meaningful activity by the debtor's liquidator from that time until the liquidator filed a chapter 15 petition in the United States more than five years later meant that the debtor had neither a COMI nor an establishment in Malta on the chapter 15 petition date. The court accordingly denied the petition for recognition. [read more …]
The Ninth Circuit's Expansive Reading of "Financial Accommodations" that Cannot Be Assumed or Assigned in Bankruptcy
It is generally well understood that agreements to extend credit or provide financing to a debtor cannot be assumed or assigned in bankruptcy. Even so, the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that precludes assumption or assignment—section 365(c)(2)—also extends to "financial accommodations," a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code and has been the subject of relatively few bankruptcy and appellate court rulings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examined the meaning of the term in In re Svenhard's Swedish Bakery, 154 F.4th 1100 (9th Cir. 2025). The court of appeals ruled that a deeply discounted settlement of pension plan withdrawal liability is a "financial accommodation" that cannot be assumed or assigned, thereby extending the reach of section 365(c)(2) well beyond conventional lending arrangements. [read more …]
Pennsylvania District Court Applies "Hypothetical Test" in Determining that Patent License Agreement Is Assignable in Bankruptcy
In Crivella Holdings Ltd. v. Mesearch Media Technologies Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-333, 2025 WL 2443400 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania affirmed a bankruptcy court ruling denying a software licensor's motion for relief from the automatic stay to terminate the license agreement. The court found the license was assumable in bankruptcy under the Third Circuit's hypothetical test as a result of language in the agreement stating that it could be assigned to a "successor in interest" of the debtor without the licensor's further consent, thereby overriding federal patent law's general prohibition against the assignment of patents. [read more …]
New York Bankruptcy Court Denies Motion to Terminate Chapter 15 Recognition and Dismiss Chapter 15 Case
In In re Oi S.A., No. 23-10193 (LGB), 2025 WL 2806591 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2025), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether chapter 15 recognition of a debtor's Brazilian restructuring proceeding should be terminated and the case dismissed due to the debtors' financial deterioration and inability to satisfy its restructuring plan obligations after entry of the recognition order. The court denied the motion, concluding that recognition of the Brazilian proceeding and a court-approved restructuring plan for the debtors should not be terminated under section 1519(d) of the Bankruptcy Code—according to the court, the sole authority for revocation of chapter 15 recognition—because, among other things, the restructuring proceeding was still pending, the debtors might still need relief authorized under chapter 15, and the debtors' prospects for reorganizing under a hypothetical chapter 11 case were uncertain at best. It also found that no provision of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the dismissal of a chapter 15 case. [read more …]
