In the decision of In re Metroplex on the Atlantic, LLC, 545 B.R. 786 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that an easement is an in rem property interest, subject to sale free and clear under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f).

Criminal defendants facing onerous restitution obligations as part of their sentence might contemplate a bankruptcy filing, in the hope of staving off the restitution obligation. In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit recently considered whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision halts a defendant’s obligation to pay restitution and firmly closed the door on that potential gambit.

Introduction

A continuing theme of this blog series on Madoff has been the perplexing and inconsistent manner, virtually to the point of arbitrariness and unfairness, with which Trustee Irving Picard has handled charities that invested with Madoff.  Installment

This Installment will address the potential legal disabilities that exist under the New York Debtor and Creditor Law for the Wilpon/Katz families, the owners of the New York Mets (collectively, the “Wilpon Interests”), in their effort to sell a minority interest(s) in the Mets, in light of the existence of the lawsuit against them (the “Wilpon Case”) by Irving Picard, the Trustee in the Bernard L. Madoff bankruptcy.

Summary

In an opinion published May 20, 2011, Judge Walsh held that a settlement agreement which is rejected in a bankruptcy proceeding is “Core” and will be decided by the Bankruptcy Court, even when it contains a jurisdictional clause that requires the agreement to be interpreted according to the laws of New York. Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a state’s post-confirmation investigation of a debtor’s post-confirmation conduct does not violate a plan confirmation order that enjoins actions against the debtor.  In re Velo Holdings, Inc. et al., 500 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).

In a recent decision ^[1] arising from the In re Residential Capital LLC, et al.

In an adversary proceeding arising out of the Chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”), the bankruptcy court denied in part and granted in part a secured lenders’ motion to dismiss certain claims in the case. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creds. V. UMB Bank, N.A. (In re Residential Capital, LLC), Adv. P. No. 13-01277, -- B.R. --, 2013 WL 4069512 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2013). At issue was certain collateral, which was part of the secured lenders’ collateral, that the lenders released to enable ResCap to pledge it to different third parties.

On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding¹ holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.