stale-mate
[steyl-meyt]
noun
In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.),1 the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v.
In another judicial decision springing from Lehman Brothers, as a result of the likely surplus in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (LBIE) after all the provable debts have been paid, Mr Justice Richards has issued a ‘statement of conclusions’ in what is called the Waterfall Application. A more detailed judgement is expected in late March 2014. We summarise the conclusions below.
Ranking and Contributions of Shareholders of Inlimited Companies
The Third Circuit in In re KB Toys, Inc.1 recently affirmed a decision of the Delaware District Court, holding that trade claims are subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code despite their subsequent sale to a third party. This case is of particular interest to investors in distressed debt.
On April 9, 2013, Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac”) submitted a proposed settlement with the United States to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. If approved, the proposed settlement would resolve more than two years of litigation concerning the tax treatment of losses sustained by Ambac in connection with credit default swap contracts entered into during the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement would result in a payment by Ambac to the Government of $101.9 million, as well as possible future additional payments of up to $14.9 million.
In another recent private letter ruling,19 the IRS ruled that an ownership change pursuant to a bankruptcy reorganization plan qualified for an exception to the general rule limiting net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards under Section 382(a).
The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.
The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.
In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)