Investors victimized by the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (collectively Madoff), should be aware of their legal options and risks. Some of these options have very short deadlines. Likewise, investors who successfully withdrew their investments before Madoff`s fraud came to light could face potential claims. In either circumstance, the prospects of litigation are high.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Previously, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that what it termed a simple supply contract between a natural gas seller and an end-user, as a matter of law, does not constitute a swap agreement.

On December 10, 2008, Bernard Madoff confessed to his two sons that he had been running what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme on the scale of approximately $50 billion and that he could no longer sustain it due to, among other things, substantial redemption requests. That night, his sons alerted authorities.  

Yesterday afternoon, the House delayed a vote on H.R. 1106, “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009” (the “Act”) after a little over an hour of debate, amidst unexpected opposition from some Democrats.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.

This alert has been prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that has a potentially huge impact on the treatment under U.S. bankruptcy law of contracts that entail a physical delivery of commodities. The decision is a positive development for those that had entered into a physically settled transaction with an entity which has subsequently become subject to a U.S. bankruptcy procedure as such transactions may qualify as a "swap agreement" and therefore fall within the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S.

When H. Jason Gold was appointed liquidating trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc., (DANA) in early 2003, creditors were expected to receive as little as three cents per claim dollar. Despite these daunting prospects, Mr.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar

WILMINGTON, Del. – The State of Idaho’s Department of Finance has won approval for a court-appointed examiner in the closely watched bankruptcy proceedings of DBSI, Inc., an Idaho-based investment firm. Judge Peter Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has given the examiner the authority to probe $2 billion in allegedly fraudulent securities transactions made by DBSI. The scheme involved more than 12,000 investors and 270 properties throughout the country.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently found that a bankruptcy trustee could not either pierce the corporate veil of a limited liability company to reach the owners of the LLC, nor could the trustee “reverse-pierce” the corporate veil of the owners of the LLC to reach a separate restaurant business that they owned.