In a 17 page decision entered March 9, 2012, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion for relief from the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay to allow an undersecured creditor to exercise its remedies against a debtor’s collateral.  A copy of Judge Carey's opinion is available here (the "Opinion").  The Opinion was issued in a case nearly identical to that discussed in this post:

Did you do business with Orleans Homebuilders prior to their bankruptcy filing?  Have you received a demand for return of alleged preferential payments?  In a recent submission to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, local developer Orleans Homebuilders stated that it intends to file as many as 400 suits to recover preferential transfers.

Introduction

This is the fifty-second in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the global Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”).

Earlier this month, Avidity Partners, LLC ("Avidity"), in its role as claims agent for the bankruptcy estates of AbitibiBowater, Inc, et al ("Debtors"), began filing avoidance actions against various defendants. As alleged in the complaints, on April 16, 2009, Debtors filed petitions for bankruptcy with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Introduction

Earlier this month, the chapter 11 trustee (the "Trustee") in the DBSI bankruptcy began filing adversary actions seeking the avoidance and recovery of alleged fraudulent transfers. The Trustee filed the adversary actions against various defendants, some of whom the Trustee identifies as "John Doe 1 -10." This post will look briefly at the DBSI bankruptcy proceeding, why DBSI filed for bankruptcy, as well as some of the events that have transpired since the compnay filed for bankruptcy.

Background

In 1984 a Third Circuit panel decided that the automatic stay did not apply to a right to payment which arose under applicable state law after a bankruptcy petition was filed. Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984). The Third Circuit tradition is that the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is binding on subsequent panels. Until this year Frenville remained good Third Circuit law notwithstanding universal rejection by other circuits.

Recently, the LandSource Creditor Litigation Liquidating Trust (the "Litigation Trust"), commenced various avoidance actions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This post will look briefly at the events leading to the commencement of this bankruptcy proceeding. Further, the post will look at some of the issues that confronted the Debtor during the reorganization process.

Background

Introduction

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).