Last week, the Federal Trade Commission announcedamendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) relating to the telemarketing of debt relief services, including new restrictions on advance fees charged by debt relief companies.
The Bankruptcy Code treats insiders with increased scrutiny, from longer preference periods to rigorous equitable subordination principles, denial of chapter 7 trustee voting rights, disqualification in some cases of votes on a cram-down chapter 11 plan, and restrictions on postpetition key-employee compensation packages. The treatment of claims by insiders for prebankruptcy services is no exception to this general policy: section 502(b)(4) disallows insider claims for services to the extent the claim exceeds the "reasonable value" of such services.
In a recent decision in the chapter 11 case of WestPoint Stevens, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit interpreted section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code to render an appeal of sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code statutorily moot. The Second Circuit held that because the Bankruptcy Court had not stayed the order authorizing the sale, a stay of only one aspect of the sale rendered moot of the sale in its entirety.
On April 30, 2009, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation (the "SAT") jointly issued the Notice on Certain Issues of Corporate Income Tax Treatment of Enterprise Reorganizations (the "Notice"), Cai Shui (2009) No. 59. The Notice provides corporate income tax treatment of various types of reorganizations including debt restructurings, acquisitions of equity, acquisitions of assets, mergers, and de-mergers.
Introduction
The California Court of Appeal recently rejected the argument that directors and officers owe fiduciary duties to the company's creditors when the company is in the so-called "zone of insolvency," or is even clearly insolvent. In Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. John Boyle, et al., 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Oct. 29, 2009), the California court expounded that "there is no broad, paramount fiduciary duty of due care or loyalty that directors of an insolvent corporation owe the corporation's creditors solely because of a state of insolvency." Id. at 893-94.
A Maryland bankruptcy court has declared that Side A benefits under a D&O policy are not property of the bankrupt estate, with the result that two former executives who have been accused of making illegal payments and diverting funds from their former employer to start a new venture may be able to recoup certain defense costs. In re: TMST, Inc. f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., et al., Docket No. 09-17787 (Bankr.D.Md. Aug. 17, 2010).
IUE-CWA v Visteon Corporation, 2010 WL 2735715 (3rd Cir July 13, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
American Consolidated Transportation Companies, Inc v RBS Citizens NA (In re American Consolidated Transportation Companies, Inc), Adversary No 10-00154, Bankruptcy No 09-26062 (Bankr ND Ill July 13, 2010)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.