Recently, in a split (2-1) decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 111 F. Supp.3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Marblegate II”). The Second Circuit held in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., No. 15-2124, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 782 (2d Cir. Jan.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor on the trustee’s claims to avoid transfers of real property, but the court enters judgment in favor of the trustee on the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) and denies the debtor a discharge. The court finds that the debtor made a false oath on his statement of financial affairs with reckless disregard for the truth. The debtor had transferred property prior to his divorce but claimed those transfers were made as a result of the divorce. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Downtown Redevelopment Districts

On January 17, 2017, a divided (2-1) panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) reversed the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) in the Marblegate litigation1 (Marblegate) with respect to the interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA).

Recoupment is an equitable remedy – not expressly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code – that permits the offset of mutual debts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Unlike typical setoff, if recoupment applies, prepetition debts can be set off against postpetition debts. A recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court demonstrates that the availability of recoupment often depends on how the court defines the contours of the “same transaction or occurrence” requirement.

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act regulates transactions in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. It does this in part by creating a general trust for the benefit of produce sellers.

Most restructuring practitioners are aware, either vaguely or through punishing experience, of the power of PACA creditors. PACA (or the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq. for those who hate brevity) requires that buyers of produce hold such produce – and their proceeds – in trust for the benefit of produce sellers.

State and federal laws provide numerous protections to secured parties to preserve their interests in collateral. As secured parties well know, however, these protections become more and more limited when the collateral is pledged to multiple secured parties. Issues, like priority of interests and liens, become more prevalent when the collateral at issue falls in value and multiple secured parties are fighting to enforce their interests in order to satisfy their debts.

On Friday, February 3, 2017, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) against B Whale Corporation, a Member of the TMT Group of Shipping Companies, (BWC) for alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). The surprise in the announcement was the unique basis on which OFAC asserted jurisdiction over BWC, a non-U.S.

Post-judgment interest is not something most lenders consider when making a loan. In fact, it is not ordinarily the subject of significant analysis even when litigation becomes necessary. Where the United States District Court is the preferred venue, however, parties easily can fall into the quandary of being stuck with the federal statutory post-judgment interest rate, which is currently less than 1% per annum.