Fulltext Search

Two recent decisions may affect the assets of individuals available to satisfy creditors' claims in bankruptcy. In the first decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that married, joint debtors received value in exchange for tuition payments and rejected the bankruptcy trustee's arguments that the tuition payments were fraudulent transfers.

Recent developments in the bankruptcy arena have placed a greater burden on claimants. Creditors are now required to make additional disclosures in their proof of claim forms, and courts are under no obligation to recognize late-filed claims. Proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Rules, including an amendment slashing the time to file a proof of claim, highlight the need for creditors to exercise extra vigilance.

GREATER DISCLOSURE

As we predicted when it was filed, Judge Rhodes of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied today several creditors’ motion to appoint an independent commission to appraise the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts (owned by the city of Detroit) as part of the city’s ongoing bankruptcy. 

Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s plan to monetize the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts, whether by sale or otherwise, took a large step towards realization today when at least nine local and national foundations pledged up to $330 million to Detroit to keep the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts safe from sale, loan, or other encumbrance, and also to shore up pension funds  Following 

Just after the Bankruptcy Court held that Detroit is indeed eligible for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr reiterated that he expects the Detroit Institute of Arts to contribute financially to the city’s plan to emerge from insolvency.  Said Orr, “We’d like to find a way to monetize the DIA.” 

The Third Circuit recently held that claims purchased from trade creditors by a claims trader will be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when the seller of the claim received, and did not repay, a preference. In doing so, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressed its disagreement with a relatively recent decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which reached the opposite conclusion.