This case is the product of yet another dispute in the extensive, multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Tom Petters. In 2005, as the sole board member of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC (“PGW”), Petters directed the acquisition of Polaroid, which operated independently and legitimately as a going concern. In late 2007 and early 2008, Polaroid and other Petters companies began experiencing financial difficulties. In January 2008, PGW approached Ritchie about a loan and the next day, Ritchie loaned $31 million to PGW to pay debts of Polaroid and PGW.

As we noted in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) issued a number of published and unpublished decisions in the fourth quarter of 2014 that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.

As discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer.

In a case of first impression, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held a tax return that is filed after the April 15 deadline is not a “return” within the meaning of § 523(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; as a consequence, a debtor is not entitled to a discharge of tax liability if the tax return is filed after the deadline.

In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the bankruptcy court dismissed a chapter 11 case for bad faith, relying in part on an email sent by someone other than the debtor relaying to his employees and sales representatives his conversation with the debtor’s chief executive officer. This decision serves as a reminder to debtor lawyers how imperative it is to review with your client what it is saying both privately and publicly about its bankruptcy case. Because even in bankruptcy court, anything you say can and will be used against you.

A recent decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri held that a manufactured home is real property for purposes of Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. This holding prevents chapter 13 debtors from modifying a secured lender’s claim where the claim is secured by a lien on a manufactured home in Missouri that is the debtor’s primary residence.

As noted in Part 1 of this series, any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.

Any buyer of assets from a company in any degree of financial stress should be concerned about the transaction being attacked as a fraudulent transfer. Officers and directors of a selling entity also have concerns about this risk due to potential personal liability.