Back in the day--say, the last two decades of the twentieth century--we bankruptcy lawyers took it largely on faith that the right structural and contractual provisions purporting to confer bankruptcy-remoteness[1] were enforceable and likely to be successful in preventing an entity from becoming, voluntarily or involuntarily, a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

On February 16, FDIC Chairman, Martin J. Gruenberg, spoke at an event hosted by The Wharton School in Philadelphia about the challenges associated with managing the orderly failure of a systemically important financial institution.

Bankruptcy is not a sure-fire remedy for credit union members in severe financial distress. While it can provide an avenue for escaping your promises to repay, it can also have some unintended, disagreeable consequences. I have represented credit unions across four states in US Bankruptcy Courts over the last 40 years. During those decades, I found that too many lawyers who file bankruptcies for credit union members are often not discussing all the consequences with their clients.

Credit agreements by their terms commonly bar the borrower from seeking punitive, indirect, special or consequential damages for a breach of the agreement by lenders and their affiliates. The clauses, as enforced, prevent a borrower from obtaining damages for harm that may be suffered by the borrower's business if the lender wrongfully declines to fund. The clauses prevent lenders from exposure to open-ended damages claims if the lenders refuse to lend to a borrower, including damages that are the direct and indirect result of the failure to lend.

Context

The Second Circuit recently issued an important decision on a “related to” jurisdiction case arising out of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. SPV Osus, Ltd. v. UBS AG, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3088 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2018).

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin have been touted as everything from a tool that will revolutionize commerce to “the very worst of speculative capitalism.”[1] Less attention has been given to their practical application vis-à-vis commercial and insolvency law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the trial court from considering the plaintiff’s claims because she was not challenging or seeking to set aside an underlying non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding under Colorado law.

Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine what effect, if any, the non-judicial proceeding had under the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.

In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the extent to which a debtor must search for “known” creditors in order to provide sufficient notice of its bankruptcy and satisfy due process. In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit determined that a “known” creditor is one that is reasonably ascertainable, and a debtor need not perform more than one reasonably diligent search to unveil the identity of “known” creditors.