Second Circuit holds that Bankruptcy Code preempts creditors’ state law constructive fraud claims.

In a typical application of the veil piercing remedy, an equity holder is held liable for the debts of the corporate entity it owns and controls. The tests courts use for determining when the remedy is available vary, but generally veil piercing may occur only where the equity holder has abused the corporate form, by using its control over an entity to commit a fraud or other injustice.

Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden

On April 7, 2016, Quicksilver Resources Inc. ("Quicksilver") announced that it closed the sale of its U.S. assets for $245 million to BlueStone Natural Resources II ("BlueStone") in connection with Quicksilver's bankruptcy cases and pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement that was approved by Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in January 2016.

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.

“Reasonably equivalent value” as a defense to a fraudulent transfer suit “can be satisfied with evidence that the transferee (1) fully performed under a lawful, arm’s-length contract for fair market value, (2) provided consideration that had objective value at the time of the transaction, and (3) made the exchange in the ordinary course of the transferee’s business,” held the Supreme Court of Texas on April 1, 2016, in response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Janvey v. Golf Channel, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2016 WL 1268188, at *2 (Tex.

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?

(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The debtor filed his notice of appeal outside the 14-day period. Upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, the debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal, but that motion was also untimely. Opinion below.

Judge: Simon

Debtor: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Louis S. Chronowski, Maria A. Diakoumakis