Congratulations! You have won your case and finally obtained a judgment against that owner or contractor who owes you money. Obtaining the judgment has not been easy. It has required hundreds of hours of time meeting with attorneys, collecting documents, printing e-mails, attending depositions and hearings, and perhaps even testifying at trial, not to mention the money spent on expert witnesses and attorneys. Given that justice has been served, has the time and expense of obtaining your judgment been worth it? Not necessarily.

In re ESA Environmental Specialists, Inc., 2013 WL 765705 (4th Cir., Mar. 1, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Patriot Coal Corporation, et al., 492 B.R. 718 (2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code empowers a bankruptcy trustee to avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that is voidable under "applicable law" by an unsecured creditor. Under the plain language of section 544(b), before a trustee can maintain an avoidance action, the trustee must demonstrate the existence of a qualified creditor, i.e., one who: (i) has a right to avoid the transfers; and (ii) holds an "allowable" unsecured claim. Importantly, the scope of "applicable law" is undefined.

Fundamental restructuring of insolvent companies—in any sector— is a fight for survival.

Given the global nature of the industry, it is perhaps no surprise that shipping companies and their advisors have sought appropriate court protection to alleviate creditor pressure and a possible break-up of the business where a consensual restructuring is not possible.

In re GAC Storage Lansing, LLC, No. 11-40944 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The court denied confirmation of the debtor’s plan, finding that: (i) the debtor failed to demonstrate that it would be able to obtain financing to pay off the balloon payment; (ii) the proposed transfer of new equity to an individual with indirect ownership interest violated the absolute priority rule; and (iii) the plan’s injunction barring actions by the secured creditor against the guarantors was overly broad.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re RAG East, LP– Case no. 12-04545-CMB (Bankr. W.D. Pa. March 4, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The court granted summary judgment in favor of a defrauded lender in a lien priority dispute with subsequent third-party lenders. The court determined that the lien of a purchase money mortgage that was allegedly released pursuant to a fraudulent satisfaction piece nonetheless had priority over the liens held by innocent third parties who provided loans to the debtor without notice of the fraud.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Unsecured Creditors Comm. v. Community Bank(In re Stinson Petroleum Co., Inc.), Case No. 12-60234 (5th Cir., Jan. 7, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Burcam Capital II, LLC, Case No. 12-04729-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Feb. 15, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT