Joining the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that new value does not need to remain unpaid in order to support the subsequent new value defense in a preference action.  See Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. (In re BFW Liquidation, LLC), Case No. 17-13588, 2018 WL 3850101 (11th Cir.

To Lease or Not to Lease

In Corporate Claims Management, Inc. v. Shapier, et al. (In re Patriot National Inc.), Adv. Pro. No. 18-50307 (Bankr. D. Del August 8, 2018), the Delaware Bankruptcy Court found that alleged misappropriation of trade secrets could constitute a violation of the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and be subject to turnover under section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

InLaMonica v. CEVA Group PLC, et al. (In re CIL Limited), Adversary No. 14-02442 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y June 15, 2018), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was tasked with deciding whether the “collapsing doctrine” could be used to determine the situs of a fraudulent transfer, which was part of an international, multi-step transaction occurring inside and outside of the United States. 

In Topfer v. Topfer (In re Topfer), Case No. 5-18-ap-00066 RNO (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2018), the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania remanded a three-and half year old divorce proceeding that had been removed to bankruptcy court. But, the remand became more complicated than it needed to be.

The chapter 7 debtor had removed the divorce action immediately after filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Shortly after removal, the non-debtor spouse moved to remand the case on mandatory abstention and permissive abstention grounds.

Banks regularly enter into commercial relationships with their customers such as opening new depository accounts.  These relationships are often contractual in nature and seem relatively straightforward until an unexpected incident occurs that causes the relationship to unravel. What then are the duties owed by each party to each another?  The default rule seems to be that the terms and conditions that the parties agreed to at first govern the parties’ actions throughout their banking relationship.

The term “golden shares” is often referred to equity interests held by a specific party—commonly a lender or investor—that authorize such party to block or prevent a corporate entity from filing bankruptcy. Such shares are often negotiated by a party that wants to ensure that its consent is obtained before any bankruptcy is commenced. Without such consent, the party holding the golden shares can seek to dismiss to a corporate bankruptcy filing by based on a lack of corporate authority.

The Bankruptcy Code often instructs a trustee or debtor to perform an act or make an election within a certain time. Sometimes the relevant provisions are intended to benefit a party in interest who is affected by a debtor’s or trustee’s action or election. Unfortunately, some of the provisions that prescribe a trustee or debtor to act fail to provide a remedy to the affected party in interest in the event the trustee or debtor does not act in compliance with the Code.

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

In In re Hungry Horse, LLC, Adversary Proceeding No. 16-11222 (Bankr. D. N.M. September 20, 2017) (“Hungry Horse”), the New Mexico Bankruptcy Court reminded us that many U.S. Supreme Court opinions can be limited in scope and do not necessarily dispose of all potential remedies to an issue.