From May 11 to May 13, 2016, SRC Liquidation, LLC International Holdings, LLC (“Liquidating Debtor”), unleashed yet another wave of preference actions, filing approximately 257 additional complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Debtor also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Background
On 26 April 2016, the Italian Government has introduced a new reform to shorten the length of the recovery of credit, by approving the decree law no. 59 (the Decree), entered into force on 3 May 2016. The Decree aims at fostering and facilitating the recovery of credit throughout enforcement and insolvency proceedings.
The main innovations concern:
In a 9-page opinion issued in the Syntax-Brillian case on May 11, 2016, Chief Judge Brendan L. Shannon lays out three principles of law that all litigants should know (if they don’t already). A copy of the Opinion is available on the Court’s website: Here. The Opinion was issued as a ruling on the motion of Alan Levine for relief from the order accepting the first-day-declaration of Gregory F. Rayburn.
On May 5, 2016, SRC Liquidation, LLC International Holdings, LLC (“Liquidating Debtor”), filed approximately 137 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Debtor also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.
A recent unpublished decision, Strunck v. Figueroa, serves as a not-so-gentle reminder that sometimes an enforcement application can be “too little, too late,” and that it is imperative to be proactive to protect your rights under a divorce decree or agreement, especially when your adversary acts in bad faith. In Strunck, a 2011 divorce decree awarded the plaintiff $23,369, which was to be transferred from the defendant’s retirement account. Before the plaintiff could act to collect the $23,369, however, the defendant withdrew the money from the retirement account.
Because no recent opinions have been published by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, I wanted to touch on a subject that is vital in nearly every preference or fraudulent transfer case: The Statute of Limitations For A Preference Claim
A. Statute of Limitations
On May 1, 2016, BIND Therapeutics, Inc., and affiliated companies (“Debtors” or “BIND”) voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The filing comes days after the Cambridge, Mass., company received a notice of default from lender Hercules Technology III LP, which demanded immediate payment of the $14.5 million the lender says it is owed under the loan. The Company is backed by Koch Industry Inc.’s David Koch.
The guiding forces for a review of EC Regulation No. 1346/2000
The downturn in the economy, which in recent years has severely affected businesses at all levels within the European Union, has pushed many countries to review their internal legal systems on insolvency and restructuring proceedings. Indeed, the demand for adequate rules increases in times of crisis, prompting reforms where existing legislation is incomplete or unable to offer legal instruments capable of responding to changing economic conditions.
The European Court of Justice contradicts the Italian Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court andrules that a partial payment of VAT is possible, provided that an independent expert certifies that there isno better alternative for the Tax Authorities
The case
The Court of Cassation (19 February 2016, No. 3324) ruled that unauthorized payment of pre-‐petitionclaims mandate a stop of the concordato procedure according to Art. 173 of the Italian Bankruptcy Lawonly if a prejudice follows for the creditors
The case