In Weisfelner v. Blavatnik(In re Lyondell Chemical Company), 2017 BL 131876 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2017), the bankruptcy court presiding over the chapter 11 case of Lyondell Chemical Company ("Lyondell") handed down a long-anticipated opinion in the protracted litigation concerning the failed 2007 merger of Lyondell with Basell AF S.C.A. ("Basell"), a Netherlands-based petrochemical company.
In the November/December 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware addressing the meaning of “unreasonably small capital” in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) safe harbors do not prevent a liquidation trust from pursuing some state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims assigned to the trust by creditors.1 Notably, the Bankruptcy Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's recent Tribune decision, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the Section 546(e) safe harbors apply to state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on federal preemption grounds.2 Instead, the Bankruptcy Court decided that federal preemption did not appl
Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.
A version of this article was first published in The Law Society Gazette and Prime Resi.
In a High Court decision this week it was held that there is no general duty on a solicitor to check the credit status of the seller in a conveyancing transaction unless expressly instructed.
The judgment also provides a useful analysis of the extent to which a solicitor should advise a client regarding the risks of a particular transaction generally, not just in the context of conveyancing.
Facts
SMITH v. SIPI, LLC (July 27, 2010)
Introduction
The automatic stay is one of the most fundamental bankruptcy protections. It enjoins the initiation or continuance of any action by any creditor against the debtor or the debtor’s property, including causes of action possessed by the debtor at time of the bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay offers this protection while bringing all of the debtor’s assets and creditors into the same forum, the bankruptcy court.
Earlier this month, the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Rehrig International bankruptcy estate filed several preference actions against various defendants. As set forth in the complaints, the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover payments which he contends are preferential transfers, fraudulent conveyances and/or postpetition transfers. Rehrig filed for bankruptcy on September 5, 2008. Less than four months later, Rehrig’s Chapter 11 proceedings were converted to cases under chapter 7. Soon after the conversion to Chapter 7, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed George L.