The recent TMA Global Annual Conference in Scottsdale Arizona gave us a great opportunity to meet with friends and colleagues old and new and swap intel and war stories!    The buzz at the conference was around the oil and gas sector.   Drilling down: Turmoil in Oil and Gas was the panel moderated by our very own Michael Cuda.   It created immediate and ongoing comment, not just at the conference but also in the wider media.  See web link from 

The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.

Filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition is an alternative not often considered by creditors. However, faced with the possibility of having to write-off a claim, a creditor may choose to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition in order to put the debtor under the control of the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy court. Such a move comes with risk, and a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision may expand that risk.

In December 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that section 109 of the Bankruptcy Code was applicable to Chapter 15 cases.  In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir.

Most lawyers are generally familiar with the concept of a floating lien under the Uniform Commercial Code. A secured creditor takes a lien in a collateral category that changes from time to time as items are added or subtracted. A common example is a working capital loan, in which financed inventory is produced and sold, then becoming an account, which is collected to provide the funds to produce new inventory.  A secured creditor may perfect a lien in the changing mass of inventory and receivables, as each category exists from time to time.

In FDIC v. AmTrustFinancial Corporation, the Sixth Circuit considered the results of the very first trial in the nation under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(o). Section 365(o) is an infrequently litigated provision of the Bankruptcy Code that requires a party seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to fulfill “any commitment . . .

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.

The US government’s foray into restructuring the ailing US automotive industry has been widely reported in the media and represents the most substantial federal intervention in the private business sector since the Great Depression. In Chrysler’s case, the government took the unprecedented step of orchestrating a “surgical” Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing with the primary goal of utilizing the provisions of Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code to sell substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” in less than 30 days.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz held a chapter 7 debtor accountable for “actual fraud” despite the absence of a specific fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court’s expansive reading of section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code gives creditors a new weapon in their fight to attack the discharge of their debts.

When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate. This decision should be required reading for all lenders since, in the matter before the Seventh Circuit, the banks’ failure to investigate their borrower’s questionable activity caused the banks to lose their security and have their secured loans reduced to unsecured claims.