When Can a Subsidiary Be Liable for the Actions of Its Owners?
The latest in a line of fraudulent transfer decisions in the Madoff case has added to the case-law regarding what level of knowledge is needed to plead actual fraud in securities Ponzi scheme cases.
As we previously reported here at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, in Burberry Limited and Burberry USA v.
Unsecured Creditors and Postpetition Interest – the EFH Court’s Analysis
Generally when parties to a dispute work out a settlement they can breathe a sigh of relief and put their differences behind them. OK – it’s a little more complicated than that when one of the parties is a chapter 11 debtor that must seek relief from the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement. But what if a party objects? Things get a bit more complicated. And what if the objecting party has no apparent pecuniary interest at stake? In that scenario, the settling parties can rest a little easier as the bankruptcy court in
It is widely known that one of the basic tenets of U.S.
Over the course of almost a decade of litigation as part of an individual debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy judge, in In re Tucker, made “half a dozen or so” comments about the debtor’s demeanor, credibility, and litigation strategy, including referring to the debtor as a “crook,” “dirty bird,” and a “skillful manipulator.” The debtor filed a motion for recusal, arguing the judge
Two recent decisions from the District Court for the Southern District of New York have renewed interest in the Trust Indenture Act and the ability of minority bondholders to use it as a shield to protect their rights in an out-of-court nonconsensual restructuring: Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v.