In Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), 503 B.R. 348
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York held that the “safe harbor” under section
546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for settlement payments made
in connection with securities contracts does not preclude
claims brought by a chapter 11 plan litigation trustee on behalf
of creditors under state law to avoid as fraudulent transfers
pre-bankruptcy payments to shareholders in a leveraged buyout
A decision recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington should be of interest to lenders and distressed debt purchasers. In Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC v. NB Distressed Debt Investment Fund Ltd. (In re Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC), 2014 BL 62646 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2014), a lender group had provided $75 million in financing to a company for the purpose of constructing a shopping center.
A trustee has filed a motion requesting court approval of a bankruptcy plan that would require New England Compounding Pharmacy owners and executives to establish a $100-million settlement fund for the benefit of creditors and individuals allegedly harmed by a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to the company’s steroid injections. In re New Eng. Compounding Pharm., Inc., No. 12-19882 (Bankr. D. Mass., motion filed May 6, 2014).
A recent ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Free Lance-Star Publishing limited the credit bidding rights of a secured creditor. The ruling has called into question the ability of the holder of secured debt to utilize such debt to acquire companies on a going concern basis in bankruptcy cases, particularly in instances where the debt was acquired at a discount for such expr
In December 2013 I wrote about the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, a bill focused on patent infringement litigation and other patent law reforms that passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis.
The Seventh Circuit has reversed the district court’s decision in the Sentinel matter and ruled that the Bankruptcy Court’s allowance of a pre-petition transfer and authorization of a post-petition transfer of assets by Sentinel to its FCM customers was permitted under the Bankruptcy Code. The District Court had previously avoided the $22.5 million pre-petition transfer of funds to FCM customers and the $297 million post-petition transfer of funds authorized by the Bankruptcy Court.
A brewing hot topic in bankruptcy law is how a Debtor deals with property that is collateral for a secured creditor which is surrendered but has not yet been legally foreclosed or repossessed by the creditor. The Debtor’s interest is obvious: to avoid accruing post petition obligations, such as taxes, insurance, and homeowner’s association dues.
In a ruling yesterday, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United State Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion by a bond trustee to transfer venue of the Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings from Wilmington, Delaware to the Northern District of Texas, citing broad support from many creditors for keeping the case before the Delaware court.
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that certain distressed debt funds were not “financial institutions” under the definition of “Eligible Assignee” in the applicable loan agreement and thus were not entitled to vote on the debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The District Court decision affirmed a bankruptcy court decision enjoining loan assignments to the funds and recently denied the funds’ motion to vacate the decision.”1