The Bankruptcy Code provides debtors in possession and other potential plan proponents with considerable flexibility to implement a plan under chapter 11. An important consideration is the preservation of potentially valuable causes of action held by the estate and the provision of a vehicle for post-confirmation prosecution of such claims.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently issued an important decision for administrative creditors in chapter 11 cases and chapter 7 cases alike. In In re National Litho, LLC, 2013 WL 2303786 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a “safe harbor” for certain transfers involving the purchase and sale of securities and protects those transfers from avoidance in bankruptcy proceedings as preferences or constructively fraudulent conveyances. Specifically, section 546(e) insulates transfers that are “settlement payments” used in the securities trade, as well as other transfers made to or from certain parties, including financial institutions, financial participants and stockbrokers, in connection with a securities contract. Section 741(8) of the Bankruptcy Code de
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shocked observers by holding that bankruptcy courts have the power to recharacterize claims on account of unpaid debts as equity infusions that cannot be repaid until all creditor claims have been satisfied. In In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.
Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a transfer made within two years of a bankruptcy filing is fraudulent if the debtor received less than “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the transfer and (i) the transfer rendered the debtor insolvent or was made at a time that the debtor was already insolvent or; (ii) the debtor had an unreasonably small amount of capital; or (iii) the debtor intended to incur, or believed that it would incur, debts that it would be unable to pay as they matured. The fraudulent transfer laws of most states, made applicable in bankruptcy pro
In determining their preference liability exposure, creditors typically consider whether they have provided any subsequent “new value” to the debtor after they have received an alleged preferential payment. Debtors and trustees frequently take the position that creditors cannot use as a defense any new value that has been repaid to the creditor post-petition through critical vendor payments or pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy courts have ruled differently on this issue.
It isn't law yet, but on December 5, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a significant patent reform bill known as the "Innovation Act." Although the focus of the legislation is on patent infringement litigation and other patent law revisions, the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, would also make major changes to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code.
My how time flies in protracted bankruptcy litigation. More than four years ago, as I reported back at the time, the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case of Qimonda AG issued its first decision on the application of Section 365(n) in that case. After an initial appeal, a four-day trial on remand, and another appeal, last week the U.S.
Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.
On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision1 in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz