July 18, 2015 was the second anniversary of the City of Detroit's filing for bankruptcy. This action was taken by the City's Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, with the support of Michigan's Governor Rick Snyder. But, with the exception of Detroit's corporate leadership, it was fiercely resisted by virtually all other interested parties, including political leaders, public employees, holders of the City's debt obligations as well as virtually all commentators in the media.
Unsecured general creditors of defunct MF Global, Inc. (other than those of its parent company MF Global Holdings Ltd.) will receive a final payment from the firm, giving them a total recovery of 95 percent of their approved claims, under a proposal made last week by the overseers of the liquidation of the firm and its parent company.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit plays a uniquely important role in the development of the bankruptcy laws. The liberal venue rule for bankruptcy cases set out in 28 U.S.C.
In an interesting decision with important implications for both Chapter 15 practice and financial institutions’ global credit risk analyses, a US Chapter 15 court (the “Court”) granted recognition of a number of Brazilian proceedings involving entities within the OAS Group. See In re OAS S.A. et al., Case No. 15-10937 (SMB) (Bankr.
On July 13, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued its decision in In re OAS S.A. et al.
28 July 2015 Should Solvency Tests Give the Same Answer?1 By Dr. David Tabak Solvency is an important issue in many bankruptcy and related matters. Unfortunately for the sake of consistency, there is not a single definition of solvency, nor is there a single test for bankruptcy. This paper addresses two of the primary tests for bankruptcy, discussing when these tests should give the same or potentially different results. A case study is provided based on a bankruptcy case in which the author served as an expert witness.
A creditor recently received a wake-up call from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina in In re Crawford, an opinion issued by the Court on June 8, 2015. In Crawford, the Court granted the debtors’ motion to compel their automobile lienholder to release its lien after the debtors made all payments under their Chapter 13 Plan. In addition, the Court awarded the debtors $7,325.00 in attorneys’ fees for the creditor’s failure to comply with the terms of the confirmed Plan.
Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has had to interpret ambiguous, imprecise, and otherwise puzzling language in the Bankruptcy Code, including the phrases “claim,” “interest in property,” “ordinary course of business,” “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” “allowed secured claim,” “willful and malicious injury,” “on account of,” “value, as of the effective date of the plan,” “projected disposable income,” “defalcation,” and “retirement funds.” The interpretive principles employed by the Court in interpreting the peculiarities of the Bankruptcy Code were in full view when the Court r
Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is not surprising then that a less than scrupulous debtor might be less than candid when disclosing assets and liabilities to a bankruptcy court. But what happens if an individual debtor is discovered to have concealed assets – possibly fraudulently or in bad faith – and then seeks to exercise his or her statutory right under the Bankruptcy Code to exempt all or a portion of the discovered assets from being available to satisfy creditors? Can a bankruptcy court in that circumstance look to the bad acts of the debtor as a basi