The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently granted in part and denied in part dismissal in favor of the defendant car manufacturer in a fraudulent transfer adversary proceeding brought by the Chapter 11 trustee in Emerald Capital Advisors Corp. ex rel. FAH Liquidating Trust v.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. July 3, 2017)

Directors and officers (D&Os) of troubled companies should be highly sensitive to D&O insurance policies with Prior Act Exclusion. While policies with such exclusion may be cheaper, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit raises the spectre that a court may hold a loss to have more than a coincidental causal connection with the officer’s conduct pre-policy period and make the (cheaper) coverage worthless.

In its recent decision Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a structured dismissal of a chapter 11 case that provides for distributions that fail to follow the standard priority rules, unless the affected creditors consent to such treatment.

On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A recent opinion by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware underscores how important it is for creditors to file complete and well-reasoned proofs of claim. The opinion also highlights the problems creditors may encounter if they have to amend their claims.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. June 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment, finding the debt owed to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the debtors in state court on a conversion claim. The court holds that collateral estoppel applies and the elements of § 523(a)(6) were satisfied by the state court judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Delk

Attorneys for Debtors: Schram, Behan & Behan, Michael R. Behan; Eiler Law Firm, Christian Michael Eiler

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that a borrowers’ federal court claim attempting to void a foreclosure sale based on a prior demand to cancel the loan under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) was barred by claim preclusion for failure to raise the issue in a prior state court action.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 29, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this adversary proceeding. The trustee sought to subordinate and recharacterize defendants’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 510, avoid as fraudulent and preferential transfers certain transfers to the defendants, and disallow defendants’ claims. The court finds that the trustee fails to allege facts sufficient to support any of the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

In many corporate Chapter 11 cases, unsecured creditors of the debtor have few, if any, assets they may use to satisfy their claims. A debtor’s hard assets, cash and cash equivalents are almost always subject to liens in favor of secured creditors, leaving no tangible assets for unsecured creditors. If unsecured creditors are to receive any value in return for their claims, this value usually must be realized from the debtor’s causes of action.