Put your lender’s hat on. Wouldn’t it be great if you could prevent your borrower from filing bankruptcy in the first place? Unfortunately for lenders, a recent decision demonstrates how hard it is to prevent bankruptcy filings.

On December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014(FIBA).  The legislation passed on a voice vote and is supported by the major Wall Street banks.

All bankruptcy practitioners know that a debtor may choose which contracts to assume and which contracts to reject.  But may a debtor reject contracts that are part of an overall, integrated transaction?  In a recent bankruptcy decision, the court found the answer to be no, at least if the parties are careful in drafting their contracts.

Tenth Circuit holds that Canadian nationals who conspire to commit a breach of fiduciary duty against a Delaware corporation operating exclusively in Oklahoma are subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma despite their lack of physical contact with the state.  Canadian law firm alleged to have assisted the conspirators is not, however, subject to personal jurisdiction.

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs., 474 B.R. 76 (2012)

The trustee for the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA") liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court against Maxam Absolute Return Fund Ltd. ("Maxam"), seeking the return of about $100 million distributed to Maxam by BLMIS.  Maxam answered the complaint and then sued the trustee in the Cayman Islands seeking a declaration that it was not required to return the money. 

In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 11-33335-HDH-15 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 13, 2012)