SCHLEICHER v. WENDT (August 20, 2010)

Conseco was a large financial services company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. It filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and successfully reorganized. This securities-fraud claim was filed against Conseco managers who are alleged to have made false statements prior to the bankruptcy. Then-District Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) certified a class. Defendants appeal.

We’ve all heard it said a million times - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But does that age-old maxim apply to a bankrupt customer offering to pay you 100% of your unsecured claim through a “prepackaged” bankruptcy or under a critical vendor program? The answer can be complicated.

This article explores what it means to be “unimpaired” and paid in full in prepackaged bankruptcies and under critical vendor programs and outlines some of the potential pitfalls that can be faced by unsecured creditors under these scenarios.

The chapter 11 case of Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) roared back to life this month.

Energy Future Holdings (EFH), f/k/a TXU Corp., an energy company centered in Texas, was taken private in 2007 in the largest leveraged buyout transaction that has ever taken place.  The deal was largely predicated on an anticipated rise in natural gas prices; when prices instead plummeted the company, which had borrowed nearly $40 billion, was left with a massively unbalanced capital structure.  The chapter 11 cases of EFH and its subsid

Many commentators have remarked that a “new normal” has evolved for Chapter 11 proceedings, wherein the major constituents negotiate the salient terms and exit strategy of the debtor’s restructuring prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, generally leading to shorter, less litigious cases.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, acting with unusual alacrity (oral argument was heard only one month ago), summarily reversed the district court decision in Longacre Master Fund v.

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND v. SCOFBP (December 27, 2011)

Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and their families and affiliated enterprises (the “Wilpon/Katz Group”) last week formally requested the dismissal of the adversary proceeding commenced by Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”). In a two hour hearing before U.S.

WHITELY v. MORAVEC (February 16, 2011)

IN RE: AIRADIGM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (August 4, 2010)