“Without these [mediated] settlements, there is no Plan.”
- From Opinion on Plan confirmation, In re Boy Scouts of America, Case No. 20-10343, Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Doc. 10136, at 80 (issued July 29, 2022).
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy has achieved a milestone: on July 29, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issues a 281-page Opinion on confirmation of Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization. The Opinion is generally favorable toward Plan confirmation but identifies a number of issues remaining to be resolved.
The struggles of failing marijuana businesses to wind down and pay creditors in an orderly fashion serve no one. Among the problems marijuana businesses face such as lack of access to banking and onerous taxation stemming from IRC 280E is the lack of access to bankruptcy proceedings.
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: