In the latest issue of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions impacting the restructuring arena, including an order in the Southern District of New York finding that U.S.
Go-To Guide:
The crypto winter has overcast the summer for many Voyager customers. Upon the commencement of Voyager’s chapter 11 filing in July, customer accounts were frozen. Unable to trade their own crypto assets, some frustrated customers rushed to consult with legal counsel. Others began studying bankruptcy law in the hopes of finding a legal solution. It was only late last week, on August 4, when some customers found relief from the crypto storm: Judge Michael Wiles approved Voyager’s motion to allow certain customers who had cash in their accounts to withdraw cash, up to $270 million.
Here’s a hard-knocks rule for debtor attorneys:
- Never file Chapter 7 for a corporation or an LLC.
Chapter 7 has always been a grave yard for failed Chapter 11s: that’s where Chapter 11 cases go when debtors can’t get a Chapter 11 plan confirmed. For example, 35.4% of Chapter 11 cases filed between 1989 and 1995 converted to Chapter 7. [Fn. 1]
But Chapter 7 is rarely a good first-choice for corporations and LLCs who want/need to liquidate.
In a recent opinion arising from the Chapter 11 proceedings of Arcapita Bank, Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court decision denying safe-harbor protection to Shari’a-compliant Murabaha investment agreements.1 Specifically, the district court held that the Murabaha agreemen
The defendant "was a `mere conduit' of [a] fraudulent transfer and cannot be liable to the bankruptcy estate for funds she never knew about," held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 5, 2022. In re BICOM N.Y., LLC, 2022 WL 1419997 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022). Affirming the lower courts' granting of summary judgement to the defendant transferee, the court refused to "equate ...
Every now and then we get a glimpse into the past . . . that casts light on issues and events of today.
One such glimpse is a Harvard Law Review article from 1909: “The Effect of a National Bankruptcy Law upon State Laws.”[Fn. 1]. It’s by Samuel Williston—the same Samuel Williston who authored “Williston on Contracts” and who served as professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1895 to 1938.
Bankruptcy v. State Laws—in 1909
In brief
In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.
I. Preferences in a Nutshell
The court's decision in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. clarifies the appointment standard for future claimants representatives in the Third Circuit under Section 524(g) of the US Bankruptcy Code.
In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the appointment of James L. Patton, Jr. as the legal representative for future talc claimants (FCR) by the bankruptcy court in the Imerys Talc America chapter 11 cases.1