This is the fourth post in our Bitcoin Bankruptcy series on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.
2014 has been a tumultuous year, filled with tragedy and interstellar triumphs: Ebola; Sochi; Ukraine; Flight 370; ISIS; Flight 17; Comet 67P. Life in the corporate bankruptcy and restructuring world was considerably more sedate than in the world at large. Now five and six years removed, some of the mega cases of the 2008 and 2009 era linger on and continue to generate interesting legal developments.
You might recognize the last name “Underhill” from the 1980’s movie, Fletch. In the movie, the main character, Irwin “Fletch” Fletcher overhears snobby country club member Mr. Underhill speaking rudely to a waiter. To get revenge, Fletch famously tells the waiter he’s “with the Underhills” and proceeds to charge a Bloody Mary, a steak sandwich and…a steak sandwich to the Underhills’ tab.
Although the bankruptcy world has long been acquainted with Ponzi schemes, the courts have not clearly answered the question of how to distribute investors’ funds after a scheme fails – especially in the scenario where certain investors profit. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah recently weighed in on the issue in
The 2005 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code ushered in section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which grants trade creditors an administrative expense for goods sold to the debtor in t
The difference between a contested matter and an adversary proceeding is relatively simple – a contested matter involves a contested request for relief in the context of the main bankruptcy proceeding (pursuant to Rule 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), while an adversary proceeding involves the filing of a complaint, commencing a separate proceeding governed by
The equitable theory of veil piercing, intended to serve as a rectifying mechanism against certain fraud, dishonesty or wrongdoing, is of particular import in the bankruptcy context given that it is an attractive remedy for a creditor of an insolvent company hoping to obtain a greater recovery on its claim. State law governs veil piercing claims and sets forth the hurdles a party must overcome in order to persuade the bankruptcy court that the debtor’s corporate formalities should be ignored.
As one bankruptcy court has said, “[b]ecause deals are the heart and soul of the [c]hapter 11 process, bankruptcy courts enforce them as cut by the parties.” Unfortunately, however, deals do not always turn out as the parties expected and there is sometimes litigation to determine what exactly was bargained for in a chapter 11 plan.
Despite recent criticisms of venue selection and cries to limit or curtail various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York demonstrates that the bankruptcy courts may continue to broadly interpret the scope of their jurisdictional reach and the powers and authorities granted to them under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd., No. 21-12075 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.