On January 14, 2014, Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Weisfelner v. Fund 1. (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.), Adv. Proc. No. 10-4609 (REG), 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.

In Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,[1] the U.S.

A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote  loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy  a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to  avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage,  they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited  two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage.  Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.

On December 5, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan released its 143 page decision upholding the City of Detroit’s eligibility to be a debtor under chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  In re City of Detroit, Michigan, Case No. 13-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Dec.

On November 8, 2013, three monoline insurers of the City’s general obligation bonds commenced adversary proceedings in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case.¹  Through these actions, the monoline insurers seek to compel enforcement of the status quo for the general obligation bonds by requiring the City to continue to segregate ad valorem taxes in accordance with Michigan law.  As these actions progress, they may clarify whether state law protections for general obligation bonds apply in chapter 9 and test the jurisdictional limitations imposed on a bankruptcy court by se

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California ruled that the City of San Bernardino is eligible for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In re City of San Bernardino, Cal., Case No. 12-28006, 2013 WL 5645560 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013).

In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.