Suppliers of good and services (“trade creditors”) generally have no duty to determine whether their customers are operating an illegal enterprise. However a recent Fifth Circuit opinion presents an unprecedented “claw-back” risk facing trade creditors who unknowingly provide goods and services to a “Ponzi-scheme” enterprise.

The Janvey Opinion

“Bad news comes in threes.” “Third time’s the charm.” “Three strikes and you’re out.”

One of these three adages may come to characterize the outcome of a case of significant import argued before the US Supreme Court this week. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif. The case is the third in a trilogy including Stern v. Marshall and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, which examine the scope of the constitutional exercise of judicial power by bankruptcy courts.

In bankruptcy proceedings involving the US retailer Crumbs Bake Shop Inc (Crumbs), the US trustee has opposed the sale of Crumbs’ customer lists on the basis that this would violate Crumbs’ privacy policy. The privacy policy allows personal data held by Crumbs to be transferred only where this is required by government authorities, needed to provide services or following customer consent.

To a business litigator, the bankruptcy debtor’s most effective weapon is often the automatic stay, which is commonly used – or abused, depending on the perspective – to, inter alia, stay all pending litigation against the debtor and keep him in sole control of an asset, despite seeming abuses of that control.

On February 7, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a highly significant opinion in two consolidated appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of a chapter 11 plan of reorganization for DBSD North America and its subsidiaries (DBSD).

On September 17, 2009 Judge Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued two orders that may significantly impact parties who held, or still currently hold, derivative contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) or any of the other debtors in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases (the Debtors).

Thanks are owed to SPB summer associate Gabby Martin for her contributions to this article.

Last month, a Florida federal jury found in favor of a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) in a trial centering on whether the CRA took “reasonable” steps to assure the accuracy of a consumer’s credit report after a consumer dispute. The result is a valuable glimpse into how juries view the burdens of the statutory obligations placed on reporting agencies by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

In 2020, bankruptcy court doors continued to be shut to cannabis companies. Perhaps most troubling is the continued bar for companies that are only tangentially involved in the state-legalized cannabis industry. Although outlier cases exist, and even though courts have hinted that bankruptcy may be appropriate for some cannabis-related individuals and companies in some situations, there is a consensus now that bankruptcy is generally not available to individuals and companies engaged, directly or indirectly, in the cannabis industry.

Bankruptcy and insurance have been engaged in a tangled web for decades. Claimants against bankrupt insureds are often frustrated in seeking a recovery that they might otherwise obtain if the insured had not gone bankrupt. In a recent case, the Third Circuit addressed the standing of a default judgment creditor claimant to sue the bankrupt insured’s insurance company to recover the default judgment.

Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors. A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members. And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.