For almost 50 years, Douglas Chrismas has helmed his Los Angeles-based Ace Gallery, helping to put struggling artists on the map, while also organizing shows for famed artists such as Andy Warhol. But on April 6, 2016, Mr. Chrismas lost the keys to his storied gallery, after failing to make a $17 million court-ordered payment to settle debts in his 2013 bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy trustee will now control the reorganized business’ finances, with Mr. Chrismas continuing to oversee the curatorial and sales duties in an effort to satisfy creditors.

Background

Like many other Ponzi schemes, R. Allen Stanford’s operated by selling Certificates of Deposit and paying an initial group of victims a high return using subsequent investors’ money, all the while taking large portions of the investment funds for himself and his various entities (the “Stanford Entities”). While the Ponzi scheme’s perpetrator and many of his associates were sentenced to prison, hundreds of civil suits were filed in various courts that related to and stemmed from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.

We see this scenario all too often – invoices were marked “net 30 days” and, for the entire shale boom, they were always paid timely or at least within the next month. But now your customers are asking for net 60, 90, even 120 day schedules, which your company simply cannot float.

With some customers, you may have been forced to negotiate COD payment arrangements. With others, they have simply disappeared and left you holding a half million dollars in accounts receivable.

A.  Fees & Costs

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio was recently presented with a strange set of facts regarding a purported licensee under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The issue was whether an acknowledged mistake by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – accompanied by a written USDA apology, no less – was sufficient to retroactively reinstate the licensee status of a produce producer.

A.  Where We Left Off

The Bankruptcy Code allows bankruptcy trustees, debtors in possession, and official committees to hire attorneys, accountants, and other professionals to assist them in carrying out their statutory duties, with their fees to be paid by the bankruptcy estate. However, to get paid, these professionals must obtain approval from the bankruptcy court. But what happens when someone objects to their fees? Can the professionals recover the fees they incur in defending their fee applications? The Supreme Court says no.

A recent decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina demonstrates just how important it is for parties asserting rights under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) to provide proper notice. Failing to correctly provide notice means that the creditor is not entitled to the PACA trust fund protections. In most cases, that will make the difference between getting paid in full and getting paid cents on the dollar.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court, in Bank of America v.

On May 26, 2015, continuing a springtime ritual for bankruptcy lawyers, the Supreme Court issued its latest “progeny of Stern” ruling on the adjudicative authority of the bankruptcy courts.  In a 6-3 decision the Court held that  “Our precedents make clear that litigants may validly consent to adjudication by the bankruptcy courts.” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif __ U.S. __ (May 26, 2015).