On March 12, West Coast Life Insurance Co. added civil conspiracy and several violations of Florida law to a complaint alleging that an investment company, several insurance brokers and individual policyholders engaged in an illegal stranger-owned life insurance (STOLI) scheme. The amended complaint alleges that Park Venture Advisors masterminded and implemented the plan, which involved the sale of individual life insurance policies to private investors, while Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Co.
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
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently found that a bankruptcy trustee could not either pierce the corporate veil of a limited liability company to reach the owners of the LLC, nor could the trustee “reverse-pierce” the corporate veil of the owners of the LLC to reach a separate restaurant business that they owned.
When a company files bankruptcy, it is crucial to closely monitor the bankruptcy proceedings from the beginning. After filing its petition, the debtor will likely file numerous “first day motions” intended to stabilize the Debtor’s business and facilitate an efficient case administration. These motions can severely affect the rights of unwary creditors who may find their interests primed by the actions of the debtor in the first few days of the case.
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.
Whether you are interested in purchasing assets or a going concern, bankruptcy court can be a land of opportunity. Assets may be sold by a trustee, or someone the trustee retains, in a Chapter 7 liquidation, or by a Debtor-in-Possession (a “DIP”) in a Chapter 11 reorganization case. In either case, you should expect a competitive bidding process. Going concerns are typically sold in Chapter 11 cases where the debtor determines, often after trying to reorganize, that it lacks the resources to reorganize and continue operating.
With bankruptcy filings up by more than 25% in the recent past, and with the promise of many more to come in the near future, an increasing number of businesses and individuals may find themselves listed amongst the largest unsecured creditors of a debtor and with much to lose in a bankruptcy case. As one of the largest creditors, these same businesses and individuals may also find themselves being solicited to serve on “official” unsecured creditors’ committees.
On April 27, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on two of three questions presented for review from the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Schwab v. Reilly. Below, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, which held that when the values on a debtor’s list of assets and on her claim of exemptions are equal, a Chapter 7 Trustee must object to a debtor’s claim of exempt property within 30 days in order to retain his statutory authority to later sell property for the benefit of creditors.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a bankruptcy trustee could not avoid an unauthorized sale of real estate to a bona fide purchaser— although the proceeds of the sale did belong to the estate.
The court ruled that an unauthorized postpetition transfer of real property in California could be avoided only if the buyer had actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing, or if the trustee recorded the transfer of title to the property from the debtor to the estate in the land records of the applicable county, In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2008).
A recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confirms that “actual control” over a debtor is not necessary to qualify as a nonstatutory “insider” for the purpose of extending the period for preference recovery under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. See Schubert v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (In re Winstar Communications, Inc.), 554 F.3d 382 (3rd Cir. 2009).