On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, holding that an order denying confirmation of the debtor’s proposed chapter 13 plan is not a “final” order that the debtor can immediately appeal. This holding could have a far-reaching impact on individual and corporate debtors in both chapter 11 and chapter 13 by in most instances eliminating their second bite at the apple in seeking confirmation of a plan.
Under Dutch law each partner of a partnership (other than a limited partner) is severally liable for liabilities of the partnership. The Dutch Supreme Court has recently rendered two important judgments with respect to the liability of partners in a partnership and the consequences thereof if the partnership is declared bankrupt.
This case is the product of yet another dispute in the extensive, multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Tom Petters. In 2005, as the sole board member of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC (“PGW”), Petters directed the acquisition of Polaroid, which operated independently and legitimately as a going concern. In late 2007 and early 2008, Polaroid and other Petters companies began experiencing financial difficulties. In January 2008, PGW approached Ritchie about a loan and the next day, Ritchie loaned $31 million to PGW to pay debts of Polaroid and PGW.
As we noted in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.
In Dutch case law it has long been held that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership automatically entails the bankruptcy of each of the partners. In a decision that explicitly breaks with previous case law, the Dutch Supreme Court found on 6 February 2015 that the bankruptcy of a Dutch partnership does no longer entail the bankruptcy of its partners.
This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) issued a number of published and unpublished decisions in the fourth quarter of 2014 that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.
As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer.
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the bankruptcy court dismissed a chapter 11 case for bad faith, relying in part on an email sent by someone other than the debtor relaying to his employees and sales representatives his conversation with the debtor’s chief executive officer. This decision serves as a reminder to debtor lawyers how imperative it is to review with your client what it is saying both privately and publicly about its bankruptcy case. Because even in bankruptcy court, anything you say can and will be used against you.
In a case of first impression, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held a tax return that is filed after the April 15 deadline is not a “return” within the meaning of § 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; as a consequence, a debtor is not entitled to a discharge of tax liability if the tax return is filed after the deadline.