Can the recipient of an actual fraudulent transfer effectively “cleanse” the transfer if the funds are returned to the debtor? In a recent opinion, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania answered that question in the affirmative.

Amortisation of assets is the decrease in value of those assets over a period of time. Amortisation of loans is the process of paying off a debt over time through regular payments.

Bankruptcy

An insolvency procedure which relates to a natural person as opposed to a company.

Bond

An interest bearing security issued by governments and companies as an alternative way to raise capital which can be traded on the open market.

Capital Structure

The composition of a company's mixture of debt and equity funding.

Credit Bid

Trusts can protect your assets, to a certain extent. Foreign and domestic asset protection trusts can protect them even more, if you structure them correctly. The jail time starts when you wait until you already have creditors banging on the door before you relinquish control or a beneficial interest in one of these trusts. Unfortunately for one person in California this April, courts call that a “fraudulent transfer,” especially if you do not seem to be getting anything of value in return (other than, of course, being able to exclude assets from a bankruptcy).

In Citibank, N.A., London Branch v Oceanwood Opportunities Master Fund and others, the English High Court recently addressed what constitutes “control” for purposes of the disenfranchisement clause ubiquitous in New York law indentures. While the Court determined that “control” is necessarily a fact-based question to be viewed in light of the particular circumstances, the judgment offers several helpful conclusions which will be good news to any lenders having or seeking control positions in note tranches.

Facts of the case

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure brought important changes to the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases, particularly Chapter 13 cases, effective on December 1st of 2017. These new rules require adjustment to the calendaring of the due date for a proof of claim.

EBH Topco, LLC, along with thirty-one (31) subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11212).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that where a mortgagee rescinded a notice of intent to accelerate and then filed a foreclosure action without first issuing a new notice of intent to accelerate, it failed to meet its burden to show clear and unequivocal notice of intent to accelerate prior to filing suit, and therefore was not entitled to foreclosure judgment.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the bank, and dismissed the foreclosure action.

Our January 22 post discussed “a long-running issue concerning the treatment of trademark licenses in bankruptcy” and its resolution in the January 12 decision of the First Circuit in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.[1] On May 17, the U.S.

Here’s an aggregation of some of my Twitter posts from May 1-6, 2018, with links to important cases, articles, and news briefs that restructuring professionals will find of interest. Don’t hesitate to reach out and contact me to discuss any posts.

May 1 – 6, 2018

BK RELATED CASES:

Corporations reorganize to reduce costs, eliminate liabilities, improve efficiencies or a combination of all three. Rarely, if ever, does a corporate reorganization accelerate a company’s liabilities or impose new ones, but two recent decisions from federal district courts in New York demonstrate careful planning and care is needed to avoid this undesirable and expensive result.