The Bankruptcy Protector has previously provided a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevichere and

In In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., 2019 WL 6767004 (6th Cir. Ct. App.), the United States Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the bankruptcy court for further consideration, the determination that the bankruptcy court held exclusive and unlimited jurisdiction and therefore could enjoin FERC from taking action regarding energy contracts because under the BJR they were financially burdensome on FES and as such could be rejected.

Facts

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on October 29, 2019, in In re TelexFree, LLC, No. 18-2001, 2019 WL 5558088, at *1 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2019) that has significant consequences for ponzi scheme litigation in bankruptcy court.

The TelexFree Ponzi Scheme and Related Bankruptcy Litigation

In In re Woodbridge Grp. of Companies, LLC, No. BR 17-12560-BLS, 2019 WL 4305444 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey, and held that a proof of claim will be expunged if the note and loan agreement underlying the claim prohibit assignment and provide that assignment without consent will be “null and void.”

Facts

The Bankruptcy Protector recently discussed notable non-bankruptcy provisions that must be consulted to ensure compliance with privacy issues. In this post, we discuss notable Bankruptcy Code provisions and Bankruptcy Rules on these issues.

Section 101(41) of the Bankruptcy Code—Personally Identifiable Information

Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).

There is currently a split in authority on the issue of whether a trustee may recover from an immediate or mediate transferee if the recipient received proceeds from a fraudulent transfer but not the fraudulently transferred property itself.

The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that unpaid post-filing suppliers, which had neither sought a court-ordered charge to secure their post-filing claims nor availed themselves of their right to stop supplying goods or services to the debtor, cannot claim an implicit priority on the proceeds of sales of assets in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

Background: going-concern sales of optometry clinics

This article first appeared in Law360.

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in BOKF NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB (In re MPM Silicones LLC), Case No. 15-2280, 2019 WL 121003 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), which had significant ramifications for senior secured creditors. Much has been written about this decision, so a lengthy discussion will not be undertaken here.