On May 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. and ruled that debtors who sell property during the course of a Chapter 11 case prior to the confirmation of a plan cannot use Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to exempt those sales from applicable state transfer and stamp taxes.
Investors victimized by the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (collectively Madoff), should be aware of their legal options and risks. Some of these options have very short deadlines. Likewise, investors who successfully withdrew their investments before Madoff`s fraud came to light could face potential claims. In either circumstance, the prospects of litigation are high.
As the Madoff Securities and Stanford Financial schemes have unraveled in recent months, financial industry participants have had to scrutinize closely their involvement with these entities. A key issue in each of these cases will be the extent to which the trustee (or similar representative) can “claw back” payments made as part of the Ponzi and related fraudulent schemes. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently considered similar facts in Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC v. Redwood Growth Partners, L.P.
Vedder Price Wins Reversal in Second Circuit Court of Appeals
As the financial crisis unfolds, the impact on U.S. financial institutions of all sizes continues to grow. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over 140 failed banks in 2009 at a cost of $27.8 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund, a new high since the end of the savings and loan crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. For 2010, the FDIC is preparing for even more bank failures, increasing its budget by 35 percent and adding more than 1,600 to its staff.
Chrysler Proposes Joint Plan of Liquidation; Unsecured Creditors' Distribution Contingent Upon the Outcome of the Daimler Lawsuit
2006 FICA Refund Claims Due April 15, 2010
On April 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) provided guidance on the interpretation of Article 13 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (the “Regulation”) in the case Lutz v Bäuerle – C-557/13.
On July 23, in ASARCO LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al. No. 13-1435 (10th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit rejected the notion that settlement requirements are different in the bankruptcy context. Section 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
In December, the Sixth Circuit, in Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie), 737 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir. 2013), addressed two matters of first impression when it adopted the majority rules that (i) a creditor who seeks relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay has the burden to prove the validity of its perfected security interest in collateral; and (ii) the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations on bankruptcy avoidance actions does not prevent the trustee from asserting them defensively under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.