Last month, New York enacted the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”)[1], which seeks to modernize the state’s fraudulent conveyance law.
Since its introduction by the Uniform Law Commission in 2014, the UVTA has now been adopted by 21 states.[2] The UVTA was originally drafted by the Uniform Law Commission as an amendment to the 1984 Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”); New York was one of only seven states that did not adopt the original UFTA.[3]
Under the Bankruptcy Code, filing a bankruptcy petition automatically halts efforts to collect pre-petition debts from the debtor outside of bankruptcy.
This is the "automatic stay," and it is a command, not a suggestion. If a creditor wants to continue a lawsuit against a debtor outside of bankruptcy, repossess collateral, terminate a lease, set off debts, or pursue other collection efforts, it first must obtain stay relief from the bankruptcy court.
A real estate developer faced foreclosure and the loss of a large and very visible condominium project in Manhattan. A prominent New York City real estate investor, Philip Pilevsky, with help from his family members tried to rescue the developer by implementing a fairly obvious and perfectly legal technique to delay the foreclosure by almost a year.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.
Establishing the judicial estoppel defense against a bankrupt plaintiff will be harder in the Eleventh Circuit following Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C., 940 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2019).
Mark your calendars! The New Jersey Department of the Treasury recently announced a new one-time program authorized by recent legislation aimed at improving government-to-business interactions.
The Streamlined Business Reinstatement and Dissolution Program offers businesses that are currently in “revoked status” – due to not having complied with the state’s administrative reporting requirements – an expedited path to reinstatement or dissolution, both notoriously time-consuming and expensive processes.
The Bottom Line
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)1The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.2
Yes, says the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit recently held that the Bankruptcy Court has the authority to confirm a chapter 11 plan which contains nonconsensual, third-party releases when such releases are integral to the successful reorganization. The court’s decision in In re Millennium holds that, when the third-party releases are integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship, the Bankruptcy Court has the constitutional authority to approve nonconsensual, third-party releases.
Background
In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.