Some victims of the now infamous Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") Ponzi scheme may receive a partial distribution in the next few months. On May 4, 2011, Irving H. Picard, the Trustee appointed for the liquidation of the business of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15, U.S.C.

In In re Young Broadcasting, Inc., et al., 430 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010), a bankruptcy court strictly construed the change-in-control provisions of a pre-petition credit agreement and refused to confirm an unsecured creditors' committee's plan of reorganization, which had been premised on the reinstatement of the debtors' accelerated secured debt under Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wealth Management, LLC, et al., 628 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On July 18, the City of Detroit filed for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, making Detroit the largest municipality to file for chapter 9 relief in United States history. Detroit is seeking to restructure approximately $18 billion in accrued obligations, consisting of approximately $11.9 billion in unsecured obligations and $6.4 billion in secured obligations. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the City offered to pay unsecured creditors a pro rata distribution of $2 billion in principal amount of interest-only, limited recourse participation notes.

This Client Alert addresses the impact on a customer of a futures commission merchant (FCM) with respect to his or her accounts held by that FCM prior to a filing for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the Bankruptcy Code) by the FCM.

Summary

Although the number of commercial bankruptcy filings has dropped, the number of lawsuits arising out of these bankruptcies is on the rise.  These lawsuits are called “avoidance actions” because they seek to avoid or “unwind” transfers to third parties.  The most common avoidance actions are “preference” actions, filed against unsecured trade creditors to recover alleged “preferential payments” made by the debtor.

The United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the authority of bankruptcy courts, with potential far-reaching implications on past, present and future bankruptcy matters. The case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), began as a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and the son of her late husband. After several years of litigation and one previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled bankruptcy courts lack the authority to enter judgments on counterclaims against a debtor that are based on state law.

In a decision likely to affect thousands of Madoff investors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16, 2011 unanimously upheld the method used by the liquidating trustee for Bernard L.