In its recent opinion in Taggart v. Lorenzen, the Supreme Court decided that “[a] court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct.” Although this standard appears to be new, it is more than a century old and “brings the old soil” from civil contempt with it.
A bankruptcy court decision recently detailed how courts applying Bankruptcy Code §303(i) can sanction creditors who "abuse … the power given to [them] … to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition." The decision shows why the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy requires careful pre-filing legal judgment.
Courts Are Divided on the Issue of Whether the Fraudulent Transfer Recovery Provision Applies Extraterritorially
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an opinion concluding that trustees can pursue recovery from foreign subsequent transferees who received property in transactions that occurred entirely outside the United States. The opinion reversed two lower court rulings and arguably conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality of U.S. legislation.
When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.
It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 15 is a prerequisite to the enforcement by a U.S. court of an order or judgment entered in such a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under the doctrine of "comity." A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directly challenges that principle.
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.
