The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that it will amend its Regulation 190.04(d)(2) regarding the operation of a commodity broker in bankruptcy. Currently, a bankruptcy trustee is prohibited, immediately upon the commencement of the commodity broker’s bankruptcy case, from processing any new trades on behalf of customers of the commodity broker, with limited exceptions.

A recent court ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland clarifies the process for determining how much money investors may be entitled to receive in connection with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) proceeding involving the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The new ruling specifically related to whether investors could receive amounts equaling the totals appearing on their last account statements. The judge sided with the SIPC-appointed trustee, Irving Picard, who argued that investors could claim only the amount they first invested with Madoff (minus any withdrawals).

On January 25, Judge Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a declaratory judgment in favor of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) in a case examining a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction and concerning the effect of event of default provisions on the payment priorities of LBSF as swap counterparty under certain swap agreements and the holders of certain credit-linked synthetic portfolio notes. The payment waterfalls (Priority Provisions) of most CDO transactions give priority to swap counterparties over noteholders.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to amend its Bankruptcy Rules to permit the trustee for a bankrupt futures commission merchant to continue to operate the business of the commodity broker in the ordinary course for a limited period of time.

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.

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.

Plaintiff, the trustee of the Chapter 7 estate of Security Asset Capital Corporation (SACC), a corporate debtor, brought an action against the debtor’s officers and directors, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties by failing to commence Chapter 7 liquidation once SACC became insolvent.

On May 18, 2016, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta released its much anticipated decision in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278, which addressed the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), the Pipeline Act and the 

Sunrise, sunset. Perhaps a matchmaker would have helped. The saga of the dispute between Ventas, Inc. and Health Care Property Investors, Inc. arose five years ago when Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust’s "board of trustees determined that a strategic sale process of its assets would be beneficial to its unitholders, thus effectively putting Sunrise ‘in play’ on the public markets" (per Blair J.A. for the Ontario Court of Appeal) in Ventas, Inc. v.