Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell routinely represents creditors in bankruptcy proceedings in order to protect their contractual and legal interests and rights to payment. The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.
MEDIA
The collection of foreclosure and bankruptcy-related fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases has been the cause of much grief for mortgage servicers of late. Learning how to do it right on the front end of a bankruptcy is the remedy. Unfortunately, the law varies to a wide degree depending upon the state where the borrower resides. This leaves mortgage lenders and servicers with little ability to streamline activities on a nationwide basis.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.
A recent decision in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in the Lehman case has extended the unenforceability of ipso facto clauses to a provision triggered by the bankruptcy filing of an affiliate of a contractual party.
Introduction
George Miller, the Chapter 7 Trustee in the HomeBanc Mortgage bankruptcy, recently filed approximately 400 preference actions against various defendants under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to a Summons filed in one of the adversary actions, the first pre-trial conference is scheduled in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on April 21, 2010. The HomeBanc bankruptcy, along with these adversary actions, are before the Honorable Kevin J.
IN THESE TURBULENT economic times, frantic calls from clients doing business with counterparties facing financial distress or bankruptcy is an increasingly common occurrence.
Introduction
Section 548 of the United States Bankruptcy Code allows for the avoidance of transfers that are either intentionally or constructively fraudulent. Section 548 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
A recent court ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland clarifies the process for determining how much money investors may be entitled to receive in connection with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) proceeding involving the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The new ruling specifically related to whether investors could receive amounts equaling the totals appearing on their last account statements. The judge sided with the SIPC-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, who argued that investors could claim only the amount they first invested with Madoff (minus any withdrawals).
In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.