On June 11, Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the complaint of the Trustee for the SemGroup estate seeking to avoid a novation made to Barclays pre-bankruptcy under a swap agreement. The Court held that the pre-bankruptcy transaction constituted a safe harbored transfer made in connection with a swap agreement and thus could not be avoided by the estate. This case is one of a number in recent years that treats the safe harbors, and particularly the section 546 safe harbors, as broadly protective of non-debtor transferees in financial transactions.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order rejecting an objection to the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, LLC (together, Dynegy) for a lack of standing.
In re Patriot Coal Corporation, et al., 492 B.R. 718 (2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In In re East End Development, LLC, 2013 WL 1820182 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Apr.
A New York state court recently denied a motion to dismiss an action brought by a reorganized debtor against the former chair of the official committee of unsecured creditors in the debtor's chapter 11 case.1 The decision is noteworthy for its holding that the reorganized debtor had standing to commence an action against the former committee member even though the claim was not expressly listed as an asset of the estate in the debtor's chapter 11 disclosure statement.
Background
Sexual abuse by the same priest over a six-year period did not amount to a single occurrence under a general liability policy, according to New York’s highest court, triggering a deductible payment for each act of abuse. The policyholder was essentially left uninsured.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss involuntary Chapter 7 petitions filed against TPG Troy LLC and T3 Troy LLC (the Troy Entities). Petitioners filed numerous actions against the Troy Entities in the United States and Europe to recover money they alleged was owed in connection with the default of payment-in-kind and subordinated notes.
In a recent decision1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York found the standard for sealing under § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code was not met and declined to seal a settlement agreement, despite requests from the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") and the counterparties to the settlement agreement to do so. Confidentiality was an essential condition of the settlement. In addition, the United States trustee supported the motion to seal, arguing that the standard for sealing had been met.
It was just an old jalopy legally repossessed by his credit union . . . until he filed a bankruptcy petition and the red lights of the automatic stay started flashing. Smokey pulled the lender over and started issuing citations so be forewarned, put your hazard lights on and drive carefully through the postpetition fog, because this decision is relevant to all secured creditors under all Bankruptcy Code Chapters, not just car lenders under Chapter 13.
In bankruptcy proceedings, is a class action superior to the claims administration process as a vehicle for resolving claims under the federal and New York State Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”)? In Schuman v. The Connaught Grp., Ltd. (In re The Connaught Grp., Ltd.), Case No. 12-01051, Slip Op. (Apr.