A February 16, 2021 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, 520 F. Supp. 3d 390, that lenders who received almost $900 million mistakenly wired to them by Citibank (the administrative agent for a $1.8-billion syndicated seven-year term loan to Revlon [2016 Loan]) were entitled to keep the money.
“[T]he bankruptcy court— . . . (2) shall excuse compliance . . . if . . . an assignee for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors . . . was appointed or took possession more than 120 days before the date of the filing of the petition, unless . . . necessary to prevent fraud or injustice.”
11 U.S.C. § 543(d)(2) (emphasis added).[Fn. 1]
Asbestos litigation continues to rage on in the tort system with no likelihood of receding in the immediate future. In addition to the inherent costs associated with having to defend and settle asbestos claims, managing asbestos litigation can be a significant distraction for corporate officers and directors from running their businesses. The overhang of asbestos litigation can also severely dampen the value of an otherwise successful and profitable company.
What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?
Federal Court Judge Cheryl Ann Kraus was ‘riding the Circuit’ and decided a regulatory takings case while sitting in the District Court, District of New Jersey captioned James v. Vornlocker. Full opinion here 2022-8-31 Vornlocker.
The case was decided on motions for summary judgment, and it appears that Plaintiff admitted most of the facts and failed to genuinely contest the remaining facts set forth in the motions.
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code's enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
Preferences
On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates its prior In re Hammons opinion, which deals with remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]
Opinion Points
Check out these points from the Hammons opinion:
Brazos Electric Cooperative received the go-ahead from Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones to seek creditor approval for its bankruptcy plan that provides for Brazos to pay $1.4 billion to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) for costs stemming from February 2021 winter storms.
On August 29, 2022, in the PG&E bankruptcy matter, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the first circuit-level court to address the question of what is the correct rate of interest to be applied to unimpaired unsecured claims against a fully solvent debtor.[2] In its decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court’s and district court’s rulings and held that such creditors are entitled to receive postpe
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently ruled in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy case that Fifth Amendment takings claims cannot be discharged or impaired by a bankruptcy plan. As a matter of first impression in that circuit, the Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit and held that former property owners affected by prepetition takings must be paid in full.
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 41 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022)