Introduction
In In re Entringer Bakeries, Inc.,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the viability of the “earmarking doctrine” as a judicially-created defense to a preference action under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Introduction:
With the country officially in a recession and the lack of available refinancing options continuing, more and more businesses are faced with the realities of foreclosure. While foreclosure often allows a business to wipe the debt slate clean with respect to the foreclosed property, it can also create unintended tax consequences as well as tax planning opportunities.
Recourse v. Non-Recourse Debt
Investors victimized by the fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff and his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (collectively Madoff), should be aware of their legal options and risks. Some of these options have very short deadlines. Likewise, investors who successfully withdrew their investments before Madoff`s fraud came to light could face potential claims. In either circumstance, the prospects of litigation are high.
As the economy worsens and the value of corporate assets declines, unsecured creditors are finding that very little, if anything, is left for them at the bankruptcy table after the secured creditors have taken as much as they can from a debtor’s assets. Now, after a period of having copious credit available on attractive terms, debtors are going into bankruptcy without sufficient assets to pay even their secured creditors in full. In such circumstances, prospects for unsecured creditors are bleak indeed.
In the insurance industry, title insurance is known as a “long-tailed” liability risk, which means that it is common for claims to be made many years after policies are issued. For this reason, owners of real estate, their lenders and their counsel have long scrutinized the financial health of title insurance underwriters.
The Sixth Circuit recently held that section 2-702(3) of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which permits good faith purchasers to defeat a valid right to reclaim, does not allow a secured creditor to defeat that right.[1] The Sixth Circuit found that the security interest held by a DIP lender could not be used to defeat the right of a reclaiming creditor under the UCC or pre-BAPCPA section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. This decision may impact the way bankruptcy courts consider reclamation claims under revised section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss two proposed bills, H.R. 200, the “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009” and H.R. 225, the “Emergency Homeownership and Equity Protection Act", that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of certain mortgages on principal homes during bankruptcy proceedings. H.R.
The Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (“LBIE”), acting as LBIE’s agent and without personal liability, have advised that they will be filing an omnibus claim on behalf of LBIE and LBIE’s customers against Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”) in its liquidation proceedings under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).