The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.
Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 the U.S. enacted equivalent of the UNCITRAL Model Law On Cross-Border Insolvencies, has received a fair amount of use by distressed shipping companies since it was enacted in 2005. In 2007, we wrote in these pages that Chapter 15 might provide a welcome U.S. safe harbor. (See “Shipping, Finance, and Insolvencies: A Homeport in the United States?” Mainbrace, June 2007, No. 2). More recently, in 2009, we published “Shipping, Finance, and Insolvencies: The Black Swan Comes Home to Roost” (Mainbrace, January 2009, No.
When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.
In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)
Recently, a Delaware bankruptcy court denied a purchaser of claims its recovery because of judgments against the original holders of the claims from whom the claims were purchased. The case,In re KB Toys, Inc., et al., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del.
In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.
One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.
In a recent decision, Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re TOUSA, Inc.), 2012 US App. LEXIS 9796 (11th Cir. May 15, 2012), the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court decision which had forcefully quashed a bankruptcy court decision to avoid, as a fraudulent transfer, a $400 million settlement and loan repayment by a parent company to a group of lenders (the “Transeastern lenders”).
Pennsylvania Bar Institute Course
Recent trade publications have prophesized a wave of shipping bankruptcies. We have already seen several in the United States in 2011, such as Omega and Marco Polo. Trailer Bridge and General Maritime fi led in November. There will undoubtedly be more, despite the potential debtors having little or no connection to the United States. In this respect, non-U.S. listed shipowning companies considering restructuring and reorganization may not factor in the potential for a U.S. main proceeding under Chapter 11 reorganization on the assumption that they do not qualify to be U.S. debtors.