Consumer debtors file bankruptcy for many of reasons, but all ultimately want the same thing: a discharge of their debts. Stated very generally, a bankruptcy discharge operates to remove the personal liability of a consumer debtor from his or her pre-petition debts. Depending on whether a debtor files Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they can obtain a discharge within a few months after filing bankruptcy or following the completion of a five year plan of reorganization. During bankruptcy, a debtor is protected by the automatic stay.

In case you were wondering, Columbus Day is in the top ten of “legal holidays” that Bankruptcy Rule 9006 recognizes.  Although the Weil Bankruptcy Blog is observing the holiday, we thought it provided a good opportunity to remind everyone of the diminished significance of legal holidays under Rule 9006.

Vigilantibus non dormientibus, æquitas subvenit.

* * * * *

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Hellas Telecom., S.A.R.L., 2014 NY Slip Op 24268 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2014), the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on two important issues related to the right to sue for recovery with respect to notes issued under indentures. First, the court held that assignments of a right of collection, but not title to the claims or the note itself, are insufficient as a matter of New York law to confer standing upon an assignee to sue for recovery on a defaulted note.

Regardless of whether a creditor has a claim identified in a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities, generally speaking, most attorneys representing creditors in the context of a chapter 11 case will advise their clients to file a formal proof of claim with the bankruptcy court.  Often this is just “belts and suspenders” and a matter of good practice but, if nothing else, a formal proof of claim will serve to protect a creditor’s rights and interests vis à vis the estate.

Case Summary

This case presents a common scenario and dynamic that a party involved with a distressed bank holding company may have seen in the last several years.

Because we couldn’t possibly top Judge Fisher’s opening line, we’re borrowing it for our introduction of In re Daniel W.

Though often overlooked, bankruptcy sales can be a real boon to businesses looking for a great deal. Prospective purchasers must, of course, interface with the bankruptcy court, so these companies must understand the lay of the land when looking for a bargain.

On September 26, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, overturning decisions by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that the Bankruptcy Court was required to review under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code the transfer of a claim by a chapter 15 debtor with a recognized foreign main proceeding pending in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”).1     In a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in which a foreign main proceeding has been recognized, section 1520(a)(2) of the Bankr

A case against a hedge fund, and one of its partners and in-house counsel, related to actions at a portfolio company and alleging breach of fiduciary duties survived a motion to dismiss.  The portfolio company, alleged to be insolvent, was a credit derivative product company that had a subsidiary that wrote credit default swaps.