In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.¹ If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.  

In re General Growth Props., Inc., Case No. 09-11977 (ALG), 2011 BL 189724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

Giuliano v. Shorenstein Company, LLC (In re Sunset Aviation, Inc.), Adv. No. 11- 50965, Bankr. No. 09-10778, 2011 WL 4002429 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 7, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

Sprint Nextel Corporation v. U.S. Bank N.A. (In re TerreStar Networks, Inc.), Case No. 10-15446 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

New bankruptcy forms and rules that took effect December 1, 2011, require secured creditors either to attach evidence of perfection of their security interest to the proof of claim form that they file, or attach a statement of why the documents are not available.

On November 29, 2011, AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines and American Eagle, and certain of its U.S. affiliates, including American Airlines and American Eagle, filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

A “fraudulent conveyance” connotes to the layperson an intentional effort to defraud someone, but in bankruptcy law this is just one type of fraudulent conveyance. Another type, sometimes referred to as constructive fraud, involves a transfer for less than “reasonably equivalent value” or, in other words, a “gift.” In bankruptcy proceedings, a trustee is chosen to administer the debtor’s estate and, to the extent feasible, to “avoid” transfers of the debtor’s assets out of the estate that place assets beyond the creditors’ reach.

New amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules became effective on December 1, 2011.  These amendments add new requirements and potentially harsh penalties for failure to comply.  An overview of those amendments follows.

Click here to view the table.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Dec. 2, 2011, ruled in favor of SRZ client Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., denying Enron’s petition for rehearing in Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., 651 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2011). The court had previously ruled against Enron more than five months ago, holding that its redemptions of commercial paper were “settlement payments” and thus not voidable as preferential or fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 546(e), one of the code’s so-called “safe harbor” provisions.