The Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Commodities Futures Trading Commission often seek appointment of receivers in civil enforcement actions, including in actions alleging operation of Ponzi-like investment schemes. Receivers are generally tasked with taking over entities used to perpetrate schemes, conducting forensic accountings, reporting their findings to the appointing court, and recovering funds, where possible, for distribution to defrauded investors.
Charles McSwain, a 53% member of Hawks Prairie Casino, LLC, a Washington LLC, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2007. Hawks Prairie operates a gambling casino in Thurston County, Washington.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the decision of Stern v. Marshall, debatably the most important case on bankruptcy court jurisdiction in the last 30 years. The 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, established limits on the power of bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on certain state law created causes of action.
One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.
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.
The Bottom Line:
An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee. Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).
A business consultant who contracted to receive a percentage of a company’s shares in exchange for helping the company go public—but never actually received those shares and obtained a money judgment against the company instead—was not a holder of equity for purposes of subordination under the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has determined.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that assignments of equipment lease payment streams were not automatically perfected. Because the debtor failed to perfect the assignees’ interests in the payment streams, the bankruptcy trustee could bring an action to avoid those interests.
The Supreme Court unanimously held on March 20, 2007, that an unsecured lender could recover contractbased legal fees “incurred in [post-bankruptcy] litigation” on “issues of bankruptcy law.” Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., __ U.S. __ (March 20, 2007). Op., at 1, 3. In doing so, the court vacated a summary ruling by the Ninth Circuit last year. 167 Fed. Appx. 593 (9th Cir. 2006) (held, “attorney fees… not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’“), citing In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.