The bankruptcy code provides protection and relief to individuals facing insurmountable debt, but it carries certain obligations and limitations, notably requiring them to list all of their assets, including any claims or potential claims on the schedule of personal assets.   As bankruptcy courts and creditors rely on the debtor's sworn representations to order a discharge of debt, a plaintiff who failed to disclose those claims in a prior or pending bankruptcy action has no standing to later pursue the non-disclosed claims and receive a windfall recovery free and clear of obligat

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for the Aged), 659 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the “deepening insolvency” cause of action, which the Third Circuit previously recognized in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2001), remains an independent cause of action under Pennsylvania law.

Background

Charles McSwain, a 53% member of Hawks Prairie Casino, LLC, a Washington LLC, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2007. Hawks Prairie operates a gambling casino in Thurston County, Washington.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

Postconfirmation liquidation and litigation trusts have become an important mechanism in a chapter 11 bankruptcy estate’s arsenal, allowing for the resolution of claims and interests without needlessly delaying confirmation in the interim. The specter of postconfirmation litigation may seem unremarkable. Section 1123(b)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code states that a plan may provide for retention or enforcement by the reorganized debtor, the trustee, or a representative of the estate of any claim or interest belonging to the estate.

The Bottom Line:

In a victory for secured creditors, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held inRiver Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC), 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), that a dissenting class of secured lenders cannot be deprived of the right to credit-bid its claims under a chapter 11 plan that proposes an auction sale of the lenders’ collateral free and clear of liens.

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

A secured creditor's option to credit bid its claim where its collateral is to be sold under a chapter 11 plan is an important protection to ensure that the creditor's collateral is not sold for less than its actual value. Rather than accepting the cash generated by a low bid, the creditor can submit its own bid, up to the amount of its secured claim, and recover its collateral instead. This traditionally recognized right was upset by two fairly recent circuit court decisions, one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Third Circuit. In re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.