Introduction

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

On December 2, 2016, Limitless Mobile, LLC (“Limitless” or the “Debtor”) filed a chapter 11 voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtor was formed in 2013 to provide broadband and wireless telecommunication services in certain rural counties in central Pennsylvania. The Debtor is part of a worldwide corporate family referred to as the Limitless Group. According to the First Day Declaration, Limitless intends to wind down its retail-side business and emerge from bankruptcy as a wholesale operator.

Over three years ago, in September 2013, Pirinate Consulting Group LLC, in its capacity as Litigation Trustee (the “Trustee”) of the NewPage Creditor Litigation Trust, began filing complaints in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court seeking the avoidance and recovery of what the Trustee alleges are preferential transfers.

On July 13, 2016, Appalachian Conventional Production Comp (“Appalachian” or “Debtor”) filed a Chapter 7 liquidation in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to the Debtor’s Petition, Appalachian has assets less totaling less than $500,000, and liabilities between $500,000 and $1 million.

A clash between Netflix and Relativity Media in bankruptcy court has made public some interesting behind-the-scenes business dealings between the two companies, and in the process shed some light on the evolution of Netflix’s business and of online distribution generally.

A recent unpublished decision, Strunck v. Figueroa, serves as a not-so-gentle reminder that sometimes an enforcement application can be “too little, too late,” and that it is imperative to be proactive to protect your rights under a divorce decree or agreement, especially when your adversary acts in bad faith. In Strunck, a 2011 divorce decree awarded the plaintiff $23,369, which was to be transferred from the defendant’s retirement account. Before the plaintiff could act to collect the $23,369, however, the defendant withdrew the money from the retirement account.

The US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts says default rates must be justified as a reasonable measure of damages at the time of the making of the loan and that a floating default rate that can exceed 5% will not be allowed as part of a creditors claim in the borrower's bankruptcy.    The loan was made in 2006 with a contract rate equal to prime at a time when the prime rate was below 13 percent.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3003(c)(3) provides that "the [bankruptcy] court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed."  For various reasons, creditors sometimes miss the claims "bar date" and need to seek permission from the court to file a late filed claim or deem the late-filed claim allowed.  In order to succeed, the creditor must convince the court that the late claim was the result of excusable neglect.  In re Garden Ridge Corp., 348 B.R. 642, 645 (Bankr. D. Del.

Those who were eagerly anticipating the final dénouement on May 15, 2012, in the epic battle between Madoff Trustee Irving Picard and the numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests (collectively, the “Wilpons”), will apparently have to wait at least until May 31, 2012. The approval of the final Settlement Agreement by Federal District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, originally scheduled to occur at a hearing on May 15, 2012 at 4 p.m., has been postponed until May 31, 2012 at 4 p.m.