In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Lehman Brothers (“LBI“) case under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA“) entered an order on Nov. 7, 2008 (the “Claims Bar Date Order“) establishing the following deadlines for the filing of claims against LBI:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on July 9, 2007, decisively affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an equitable subordination complaint filed by a creditors' committee against eight investment fund lenders. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Applied Theory Corporation v. Halifax Fund, L.P., et al. (In re Applied Theory Corporation), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16180 (2d Cir. July 9, 2007).

In In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., 1 U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the bankruptcy court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases—namely for the benefit of the Sackler family, which owns Purdue.

“[B]ankruptcy inevitably creates harsh results for some players,” explained the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on May 21, 2021, when it denied a film producer’s claim for contractual cure payments. In re Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 2023058, *9 (3d Cir. May 21, 2021).

An insolvent parent’s college “tuition payments… depleted the [debtor’s] estate and furnished nothing of direct value to the [debtor’s] creditors…,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Nov. 12, 2019. In re Palladino, 2019 WL 5883721, *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 12, 2019). Reversing the bankruptcy court on a direct appeal, the First Circuit rejected its reasoning “that a financially self-sufficient daughter offered [the debtor parents] an economic benefit.” Id. at *2.

Two courts have added to the murky case law addressing a bankruptcy trustee’s ability to recover a debtor’s tuition payments for their children. In Geltzer v. Oberlin College, et al., 2018 WL 6333588 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018), a New York Bankruptcy Judge permitted a trustee to claw back payments that parents made to their financially independent adult children for college-related costs. In Pergament v. Brooklyn Law School, et al., 2018 WL 6182502 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.

THE BANKING LAW JOURNAL

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer and Fiduciary Duty Claims

Michael L. Cook* This article discusses a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision holding that the debt-financed purchase of a business was not a fraudulent transfer and did not violate the fiduciary duty of the company's directors.

“Transaction fees are part of the standard, negotiated base compensation for the investment banker,” held the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 16, 2016. In re Relativity Fashion, LLC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 4339, *10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) (Wiles, B.J.). The court denied objections to the transaction fees sought by two investment bankers, P and H, ruling that the objecting parties (a fee examiner, the debtor and a secured lender) had no right under Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 328(a) to challenge the transaction fees. Id. at *25.

“Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act is barred by § 903(1) … of the Bankruptcy Code,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 2016. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 2016 WL 3221517, *11 (U.S. June 13, 2016) (5-2). Affirming the First Circuit, the court reasoned that Code § 903(i) “preempts state bankruptcy laws [enabling] insolvent municipalities to restructure their debts over the objections of creditors [and] instead requires municipalities to restructure [their] debts under Chapter 9 of the Code.” Id., at *2.