Federal equity receivers frequently lack the resources necessary to pursue litigation against individuals and entities that have defrauded or manipulated consumers and investors. As a result, they often utilize contingent fee arrangements, which can deprive a receivership estate of a significant portion of a recovery, usually taking 30 percent to 50 percent of an award or settlement.

With contributions by Deirdre Carey Brown, ForsheyProstok LLP

A company is pursuing a high-value claim against a defendant. The case is strong on the merits, and a substantial recovery appears to be in the offing.

That is, until the defendant files for bankruptcy.

Arbitral awards benefit from being widely enforceable. This is the case particularly in jurisdictions that are members of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (New York Convention). Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention is rejected only on narrow grounds (Article V). There is, however, an additional ground for an award to become unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction that is often overlooked: limitation periods.

Overview

In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bottom Line

In its recent decision in Mitchell v. Zagaroli, Adv. Pro. No. 20-05000, 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that the Chapter 7 trustee could step into the shoes of the IRS and utilize the IRS’ longer look-back period to avoid fraudulent transfers.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In In re CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., 20-33163, 2020 WL 7356380 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the court to alter a debtor’s rent obligations beyond the 60-day post-petition period enumerated in Section 365(d)(3) of the code. However, the court declined to address the remedy for a violation of Section 365(d)(3).

What Happened?

Background

Insurers with portfolio assets that are distressed because of the COVID-19 pandemic will want to consider the extension of prior guidance from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on restructuring such debt.

Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

When stakeholders in a bankruptcy disagree as to how assets should be distributed, the result may be intercreditor litigation that is both expensive and time-consuming. Such litigation can seem antithetical to the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code, which encourages stakeholders to approve a consensual restructuring plan. Nevertheless, many creditors conclude they have no other choice but to litigate.