The Second
On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), Case No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. 2012), holding that a real estate management company’s electricity supply contract qualified as a “forward contract”, payments on account of which are protected from avoidance as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.
I am the director of a corporate hospitality agency that has become insolvent. I still have a lot of goodwill with my clients and am keen not to lose the book of contacts I have built up in this industry. Can you tell me whether there is anything to stop me from forming a new company from the remains of my failed business and opening up again under a different name?
The Second Circuit recently issued its opinion in the DBSD N.A., Inc. bankruptcy case addressing several bankruptcy issues that have received wide-spread reporting, including the validity of the "gifting” doctrine and the standing of an "out of the money" creditor to object to confirmation of a chapter 11 plan. A lesser publicized issue addressed in the decision, but one that should signal a warning to claim purchaser’s of bankrupt companies, was the designation of a vote of DISH Network Inc. on DBSD's plan under section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.
David Rubin and Henry Lan; administrators of Capitol Films v Cobalt Pictures and 24 others [2010] EWHC 3223 (Ch).
On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), which affirmed that secured creditors have the right to use their claims to credit bid in auctions of their collateral conducted under bankruptcy reorganization plans. The decision is a victory for secured lenders because these credit bid rights ensure that, in the context of a collateral sale, secured lenders will be able to use their claims to purchase their collateral if they are not being repaid in full.
Litigation arising from the Tousa, Inc. fraudulent transfer claims has been working its way through the legal system since 2009, and the recent decision issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (the “11th Circuit”), has significant ramifications for any party holding debt, whether that debt is secured, unsecured, original issue or purchased on the secondary market. Regardless of the type of debt, or its source, Tousa illustrates that lenders must heighten their due diligence efforts to protect themselves from the risk of a lawsuit alleging fraudulent transfer liability.
On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided RadLAX Gateway Hotel LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, holding that a Chapter 11 debtor may not obtain confirmation of a "cramdown" plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(a) that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a secured creditor's lien but that does not permit the creditor to credit-bid at the asset sale (that is, offset the purchase price by the amount of the debt owed).
On May 14, 2012, the Supreme Court decided Hall v. United States, No. 10-875, holding that a federal income tax liability resulting from the postpetition sale of an individual debtor's farm during the pendency of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy is not "incurred by the estate" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(B)(i) and therefore is not dischargeable in the bankruptcy.
For employers to understand the big picture, our earlier posts described the government subsidies, individual