The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a litigation trustee's motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint that would have asserted constructive fraudulent transfer claims against 5,000 Tribune Company shareholders. The safe harbor of Bankruptcy Code §546(e) barred the trustee's proposed claims.
One of the powerful benefits of bankruptcy is the ability to obtain a “fresh” start by obtaining a discharge of most, but not all claims that arose prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. But when does a claim arise? This issue is especially complex when environmental contamination claims are involved.
"A … transferee [who] received fraudulent transfers with actual knowledge or inquiry notice of fraud or insolvency" loses any "good faith" defense available under the Texas version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), held the Fifth Circuit in Janvey v. GMAG, LLC
It has been nearly two years since the Supreme Court upended the world of the Bankruptcy Code securities safe harbor with its decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.. For all of the speculation regarding its consequences, there have been few subsequent lower court decisions applying Merit Management, however those cases provide valuable guidance to practitioners facing safe harbor litigation as well as transactional lawyers looking to take advantage of safe harbor protections.
With the recent carnage in the retail industry, a lot of attention goes to the fate of landlords when their tenants seek bankruptcy protection. A recent case that brings balance is Revel AC Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk, LLC.
Employees of a troubled company who stay on as consultants to assist in liquidating its assets or preparing the company for a bankruptcy filing may later be disappointed to face claims to claw back their prepetition compensation.
When Entities May Not Have a Filing Choice and How Creditors Are Impacted
This article explores the difficulties some entities have encountered in filing bankruptcies and how one organization used extraordinary civil remedies in an attempt to accomplish what reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code would have provided.
With the recent carnage in the retail industry, including Sears and many other retailers of all shapes and sizes, a lot of attention goes to the fate of landlords when their tenants seek bankruptcy protection.
As widely reported, the downfall of Sears was a slow-motion train wreck. Despite its unique size and complexity, however, some of the strategies and techniques used by the stakeholders in Sears can be applied in cases of any size.
In Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that “… Ponzi scheme payments to satisfy legitimate antecedent debts to defendant banks could not be avoided” by a bankruptcy trustee “absent transaction-specific proof of actual intent to defraud or the statutory elements of constructive fraud — transfer by an insolvent debtor who did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange.”
