The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has held that a cross-affiliate netting provision in an ISDA swap agreement is unenforceable in bankruptcy. In the SIPA proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI), UBS AG (UBS) sought to offset UBS’s obligation to return excess collateral to LBI against claims purportedly owed by LBI to UBS subsidiaries, UBS Securities and UBS Financial Services.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Chapter 183C of the General Laws of Massachusetts, is preempted by the high cost home loan provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for federally chartered depository institutions. The July 27 ruling came in a case brought by Massachusetts residents who had jointly received a home mortgage loan from a national bank.

A secured creditor's option to credit bid its claim where its collateral is to be sold under a chapter 11 plan is an important protection to ensure that the creditor's collateral is not sold for less than its actual value. Rather than accepting the cash generated by a low bid, the creditor can submit its own bid, up to the amount of its secured claim, and recover its collateral instead. This traditionally recognized right was upset by two fairly recent circuit court decisions, one from the Fifth Circuit and one from the Third Circuit. In re Pacific Lumber Co., 584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.

In In re Washington Mutual, Inc., No. 08-12229 (MFW), 2011 WL 4090757 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept.

FILING CHAPTER 13

Last month, Jeoffrey Burtch (the "Trustee"), as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Opus South Bankruptcy, began filing preference complaints seeking to recover what the Trustee alleges are avoidable transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.  For those unfamiliar with the Opus South bankruptcy, the company filed petitions for bankruptcy in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court on April 22, 2009.  The Opus South bankruptcy began as a chapter 11 reorganization.  However,  on August 27, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order converting the case to a chapter 7 liquidation.  The Trustee w

In re Zais Investment Grade Ltd. VII1 is the latest in a recent line of bankruptcy cases challenging bedrock assumptions regarding securitization special purpose entities (SPEs) and bankruptcy considerations in securitization transactions.2 Zais establishes precedent allowing a senior noteholder of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to place the CDO issuer in an involuntary chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to advance an asset management plan that would otherwise require supermajority approval of all noteholders (including all junior classes) under the related indenture.

If there was such a contest, the 232-unit Spa at Sunset Isles would be in the running for "worst case scenario" condo-conversion.  Here is a summary of the development's situation as it existed in late 2010:  

On September 19th, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the exception to Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge for debts resulting from a violation of state or federal securities laws applies when the debtor himself is not culpable for the securities violation that caused the debt. The case involved an attorney who was required by court order to return the unearned retainer paid by a company that engaged in securities fraud. The attorney filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before he was technically required to return the money.