A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stayed the part of a bankruptcy court’s sale order that would have “stripped” a commercial tenant’s lease from the casino property being sold to a third party. In re Revel AC, Inc., 2015 WL 5711358 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2015) (2-1).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on March 19, 2014, held that a corrupt debtor’s pre-bankruptcy cash transfer to a commodity broker was a “settlement payment” made “in connection with a securities contract,” thus falling “within [Bankruptcy Code] §546(e)’s safe harbor” and insulating the transfer from the trustee’s preference claim. Grede v. FCStone, LLC (In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc.), 2014 WL 1041736, *7 (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014).

Chapter 11 creditors’ committees and debtors continue to challenge lenders’ prepayment premiums, commitment fees and post-bankruptcy interest claims in reorganization cases. Nevertheless, courts regularly reject these challenges in well-reasoned decisions.

United States District Court Judge Alan S. Gold, on February 11, 2011, reversed a Florida bankruptcy court’s controversial October 2009 fraudulent transfer judgment1 against a group of lenders based on their receipt of a $421 million loan repayment in July 2007. 3V Capital Master Fund, et al., v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., et al, Case No. 10-60017-CIV (S.D. Fla. Feb.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its post-bankruptcy legal fees incurred on a pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement. Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., __F.3d __, No. 09-0691-bk, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2009). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “interposes no bar . . . to recovery.” Id. at *8-9 (citing Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a bankruptcy court’s equitable subordination order on June 20, 2008. Wooley v. Faulkner (In re SI Restructuring, Inc.), ____ F.3d __, 2008 WL2469406 (5th Cir. 2008). According to the court, subordination of the insiders’ secured claims was “inappropriate” because the bankruptcy trustee had failed to show that the defendant insiders’ “loans to the debtor harmed either the debtor or the general creditors.” Id., at *1. The court also rejected the trustee’s “deepening insolvency” argument on the facts and as a matter of law.

From December 15-21, 2016, the Seal123, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed approximately 68 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 544 and/or 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Liquidation Trust also seek to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Summary

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published June 14, 2011, Judge Walrath ruled that a Chapter 7 Trustee’s lack of specificity in pleading a preference action was grounds for dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6). Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

A discovery dispute gave the bankruptcy court an opportunity to rule on the common interest privilege which, the court said, has completely replaced the joint defense privilege for information sharing among clients with different attorneys, citing In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 364 n. 20 (3d Cir. 2007). Leslie Controls, Inc., Case No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. 9/21/10)(Sontchi, B.J.).