Last Thursday, a Delaware Bankruptcy Court disqualified two law firms from representing an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors based on their conduct in soliciting proxies from creditors who were not existing firm clients. In re Universal Building Products, No. 10-12453 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 4, 2010), involved an extreme fact pattern but it may nonetheless have a substantial effect not only on the selection of professionals for future Committees but also on the appointment of creditors to Committees, at least in Delaware.

Most polls, political pundits, and crystal balls are predicting a larger crowd on the Republican side of the aisle after the midterm elections, potentially giving them a majority in the House and tightening the margin in the Senate. The natural question that follows is what will happen to Dodd-Frank if the composition of Congress changes significantly? Is it possible that with a Republican majority the House may seek to repeal one of the most controversial pieces of legislation enacted by the Obama administration?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.

When we last left off, Judge Peck (SDNY) was foiling Cyrus Select Opportunities’ efforts to oppose Ion Media’s chapter 11 plan, while in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Jernigan was putting the stops on Michigan Retirement Systems’ attempt to thwart Erickson Retirement Communities’ allocation of value to PNC Bank

Last week the Supreme Court exercised its option to do nothing about a Seventh Circuit decision allowing the federal government to cram a $150 million remediation obligation onto a chapter 11 successor corporation – all because the feds chose to proceed under RCRA (the federal hazardous waste statute) rather than CERCLA (the Superfund cleanup statute). Smart tactics by the feds.

Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.

In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2010), involved a very common scenario. A company in financial difficulty sought to negotiate a consensual restructuring with an ad hoc committee and, in that context, disclosed various confidential analyses. In this particular case, the company had asbestos exposure, the ad hoc committee represented asbestos plaintiffs, and the shared information included a memorandum and numerous e-mails concerning potential insurance recoveries under various bankruptcy scenarios.

On September 16, HM Treasury published its third consultation on new insolvency arrangements for investment firms. The consultation sets out the government’s final proposals for a special administration regime (SAR) for investment firms.

On August 2, the English Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on the client money directions application made in the Administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The Court of Appeal overturned Mr. Justice Briggs’ High Court decision in part, holding unanimously that: