Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Chapter 11 corporate debtor's monetary penalty obligation owed to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), resulting from "fraud on consumers," survived the debtor's reorganization plan discharge, even when the FCC "was not a victim of the fraud," held the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2021. In re Fusion Connect, Inc., 2021 WL 3932346, 1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2021). On appeal, the court reversed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the Government's non-dischargeability complaint under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §1146(d)(6), explaining that the fraud exception to dischargeability reaches debts owed to "creditors who were not themselves defrauded," such as the Government here. Id., at 2. According to the court, the bankruptcy court had confirmed the debtor's reorganization plan with a broad discharge (i.e., release) of pre-bankruptcy debt, but the plan confirmation order put "stakeholders … on notice that [the FCC Penalty] could attach to the newly constituted [reorganized] entity," when its terms made the dischargeability of that liability "an open issue." Id., at 12.
The Fusion decision is important. A corporate debtor seeking chapter 11 reorganization relief ordinarily wants to clean up its balance sheet by eliminating unsecured liabilities with a discharge provision in a reorganization plan, permanently barring creditors from enforcing their pre-bankruptcy claims. When the bankruptcy court confirms the plan, the discharge will be a key part of the confirmation order. As the Third Circuit recently stressed in a similar context, "debtors [must] know their liabilities [in order to] implement a viable plan to obtain a fresh start." Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC, 2021 WL 3852612, 7 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). According to the Third Circuit, though, "the debtor's interest in a fresh start is not absolute, as the Bankruptcy Code tries to strike the 'delicate balance between the competing interests of creditors pursuing their claims and debtors in obtaining a fresh start and finality.'" Id., at 4, (citation omitted).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.