Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC, No. 20 Civ. 5933 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2021) [click for opinion]
In re Markus, 607 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) [click for opinion]
The recent decision from the United States Supreme Court in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (“Lamar”), further restricts a creditor’s ability to pursue future recovery on its debt through a nondischargeability action in a debtor’s bankruptcy. On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled in Lamar that a debtor’s false statement about a single asset must be in writing before the creditor’s debt can be excepted as nondischargeable in bankruptcy.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided landlords dealing with a rejected lease with further guidance on the size and basis of their claims against a tenant’s bankruptcy estate. Kupfer v. Salma (In re Kupfer), No. 14-16697 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2016). The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory cap – 11 U.S.C.
All bankruptcy lawyers (and most long-suffering trade creditors) know that creditors who receive payments from a debtor within the “preference period” – 90 days before a voluntary bankruptcy case was filed, or 1 year if the creditor is an “insider” of the debtor – are at risk of lawsuit to return those payments to the bankruptcy estate. Pre-petition claims the creditor hold are no automatic defense.
We’ve all seen it. The business opportunity looks enticing but is laced with risk about a potential bankruptcy filing down the road. As bankruptcy lawyers we are often asked how deals can be structured to prevent a potential bankruptcy filing.
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)