Introduction

In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

The Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (“LBIE”), acting as LBIE’s agent and without personal liability, have advised that they will be filing an omnibus claim on behalf of LBIE and LBIE’s customers against Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) in its liquidation proceedings under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).  

Earlier this week, Barclays Capital Inc., the investment banking unit and capital markets unit of Barclays plc, and Lehman Brothers Inc., the brokerage unit of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., entered into a settlement under which Barclays Capital will receive approximately $689 million in cash and securities for securities belonging to customers of Lehman Brothers that were never transferred when Barclays plc closed the sale for Lehman Brothers on Septemb

On December 10, 2008, Bernard Madoff confessed to his two sons that he had been running what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme on the scale of approximately $50 billion and that he could no longer sustain it due to, among other things, substantial redemption requests. That night, his sons alerted authorities.  

In recent opinions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have revisited the doctrine of equitable subordination and have underscored the requirement that, before a court can equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim, the court must find that other creditors have been harmed by the actions of the creditor. Importantly, both decisions stress that equitable subordination is meant to be remedial and not punitive, and may not be imposed merely because a creditor has engaged in misconduct.

The Fourth Circuit’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s narrow reading of swap agreement clarifies the nature of agreements entitled to broad protections under the Bankruptcy Code, but until the decision is fully implemented on remand, swap participants will bear increased risk in hedging transactions.

When H. Jason Gold was appointed liquidating trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Dornier Aviation (North America), Inc., (DANA) in early 2003, creditors were expected to receive as little as three cents per claim dollar. Despite these daunting prospects, Mr.

On February 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressing an apparent issue of first impression, ruled that a series of gas supply contracts might constitute “commodity forward agreements” and, in turn, “swap agreements,” exempt from the court-appointed trustee’s avoidance actions.1 The Court reversed and remanded the decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which had held that the commodity supply contracts at issue were insufficiently tied to financial markets to be considered protected “commodity forwar