With a slowdown in capital markets activity and sharply decreased economic activity, the pressures on borrowers (and therefore their lenders) are only going to increase in the near term.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.

Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), protects certain prepetition payouts by or to financial institutions from clawback by the trustee of the ensuing bankruptcy estate. In particular, the safe harbor protects transfers made by a debtor by or to a broker, financial institution, or similar intermediary in connection with a “securities contract,” unless the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103 (previously described in the October 2, 2014, Docket Report)

Legal Update
September 27, 2013
In re Tribune: Defendants Successfully Challenge Individual
Creditors Standing But District Court Rules that Section 546(e)
Safe Harbor Does Not Bar Individual Creditors’ State Law Based
Constructive Fraudulent Conveyance Claims
On September 23, 2013, the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York in In re
Tribune1 held that the individual creditor suits at
issue were stayed because the Creditors’
Committee was in the process of prosecuting
claims for intentional fraudulent conveyance

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

Overview

On September 1, 2021, Judge Robert Drain issued a much-anticipated oral ruling approving Purdue Pharma L.P.’s plan of reorganization. The plan, which has garnered significant attention from the media, legislators, academics, and practitioners, releases current and future members of the Sackler family and many of their associates and affiliated companies – none of whom filed for bankruptcy themselves – from liability in connection with any possible harm caused by OxyContin and other opioids that Purdue Pharma manufactured and distributed.

Just after 5:00 p.m. Central Time on February 23, 2021, Belk, Inc. and its affiliates filed chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, along with a proposed “prepackaged” plan of reorganization. Before midnight, the US Trustee objected to Belk’s plan, and, by 8:00 a.m. the next day, the parties were in court to decide plan confirmation. Two hours later, Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur confirmed the plan, and it became effective that afternoon, just 20 hours after the Chapter 11 cases were filed.

Can state regulatory agencies move ahead with lawsuits against businesses who file for bankruptcy in order to enforce consumer protection and business laws, or does the automatic stay’s broad injunctive sweep capture those actions? The answer depends on whether the state is acting in its regulatory capacity or simply like another creditor – and the distinction is not always clear.