(7th Cir. June 23, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, concluding that the bankruptcy code permits modification of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan based on increased income post-confirmation. While the code does not expressly permit modification on this basis, other courts have permitted this. The trustee had filed a motion to increase the debtors’ plan payments based on an alleged $50,000 post-confirmation increase in the debtors’ annual income. Opinion below.
Judge: Adelman
Attorney for Debtor: Eugene Wedoff
In recent years, constructively fraudulent transfer claims asserted in bankruptcy cases, especially those arising from LBOs and similar shareholder transactions, have hit a major road block.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion that addresses, among other issues, the question of whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code preempts certain fraudulent transfer avoidance actions brought under state law. In re Physiotherapy Holdings Inc., No. 15-51238 (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016).
In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate.
On June 16, 2016, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of Kid Brands Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”), filed approximately 64 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Committee also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On June 22, 2016, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on a motion to for class certification in the PacSun bankruptcy, Case No. 16-10882. In 2011, two plaintiffs filed actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. One of the Plaintiffs was granted class certification in February, 2016. After PacSun filed for bankruptcy, these plaintiffs moved for authority to file bankruptcy proofs of claim as representatives of the PAGA class for the class.
Businesses need to have written protocols in place to deal with bankruptcy filings by their employees and independent contractors, or they risk serious sanctions and, potentially, punitive damages for violations of the bankruptcy laws. Consider two examples.
A debtor’s pre-bankruptcy repurchase of its stock for $150 million was not a fraudulent transfer because the debtor “could have sold off enough of its assets or alternatively obtained sufficient credit to continue its business for the foreseeable future,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 15, 2016. In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 2016 WL3315847, *2 (2d Cir. June 15, 2016). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit stressed that “the issue of adequate capitalization,” the “sole issue presented on appeal ...
Claims disputes are “core proceedings” in bankruptcy cases that are subject to the general jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, subject to exceptions for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims. Under 28 U.S.C.
In a case of first impression, DLA Piper argued before the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that a consent provision in a Delaware LLC operating agreement effectively granting a creditor a veto right over a debtor’s decision to file for bankruptcy was void because it was contrary to federal public policy.
Who doesn’t love a good catch-all provision? In a world of infinite possibilities, attorneys often find themselves drafting language designed to encompass a plethora of contingencies. Are such efforts sometimes overkill? Perhaps. Nevertheless, given our imperfect ability to predict the future, such provisions are often necessary and appropriate.