Background:

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.