Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.

Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde:

The Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule specifying its procedures for emergency lendingunder Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.  Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Board’s authority to engage in emergency lending has been limited to programs and facilities with “broad-based eligibility” that have been established with the approval

Report contents:

In Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. et al. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), Case No. 13-4175 (Aug. 10, 2015), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that a single payment made by a debtor within the 90-day preference period to a seller, with whom the debtor had never done business, may satisfy the elements to be a payment in the “ordinary course” and, thus, not subject to a preference claim by the trustee.

Banking & Finance Aktuelle Informationen des Geschäftsbereichs Banking & Finance News from the Banking & Finance practice Juli/July 2015 4 | Editorial Fokus 6 | BaFin erlaubt regulierten Fonds die direkte Kreditvergabe 8 | Immer wieder Restrukturierung von Anleihen 10 | Zur Verwertung von mit fremden Marken gekennzeichnetem Sicherungsgut durch den Sicherungsnehmer und der Bedeutung des markenrechtlichen Erschöpfungsgrundsatzes, §24 Abs.

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.

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.

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.