In In re Squirrels Rsch. Labs, LLC, No. 21-61491, 2022 WL 1310173, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2022), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently addressed whether post-sale of the debtors’ assets, a creditor could conduct discovery to investigate the extent of a secured creditor’s liens in order to amend the distribution of the sale proceeds. Under the facts of this case, the bankruptcy court denied the creditor’s request.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In recent years it seems that a common misconception among lenders and their counsel has been taking shape. Namely, that lender liability is no longer a viable cause of action in today’s financial services and judicial landscapes. Those who subscribe to this view, however, should pay careful attention to a recent decision demonstrating that lenders still can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a borrower’s business affairs.
Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a helpful decision applying principles of discoverability to determine when a limitation period begins to run. In Roberts v. E.
On December 14, 2007, Bill C-12 was given Royal Assent. The Bill involves a comprehensive reform of Canada’s insolvency system. A key component of these reforms was the creation of the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP). The WEPP provides statutory wage protection for workers when a) their employer becomes bankrupt or subject to a receivership, and b) their employment is terminated as a result.
BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO. 4 JULY–AUGUST 2022 1 IN THIS ISSUE 1 U.S.
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12 F.4th 171 (2d Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived litigation filed by the trustee administering the assets of defunct investment firm Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC ("MIS") seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in allegedly fraudulent transfers made to former MIS customers and certain other defendants as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.
In the latest chapter of more than a decade of litigation involving efforts to recover fictitious profits paid to certain customers of Bernard Madoff's defunct brokerage firm as part of the largest Ponzi scheme in history, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 976 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.
Postpetition financing provided by pre-bankruptcy shareholders or other "insiders" is not uncommon in chapter 11 cases as a way to fund a plan of reorganization and allow old shareholders to retain an ownership interest in the reorganized entity. The practice is typically sanctioned by bankruptcy courts under an exception—the "new value" exception—to the "absolute priority rule," which prohibits shareholders and junior creditors from receiving any distribution under a plan on account of their interests or claims unless senior creditors are paid in full or agree otherwise.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently added some weight to the majority rule on a hot-button issue for claims traders. InIn re Firestar Diamond, Inc., 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020), the court ruled that a transferred claim can be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code even if the entity holding the claim is not the recipient of a voidable transfer. According to the court, claim disallowance under section 502(d) "rests on the claim and not the claim holder."