In the Matter of: Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir., Feb. 26, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, et al., 486 B.R. 286 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first court of appeals to determine whether the absolute priority rule continues to apply to individual chapter 11 debtors. Taking the "narrow view" adopted by certain courts, the Fourth Circuit held that the rule was not abrogated by the amendments of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, and therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of the proposed plan.
Pre-financial crisis, interest rate derivatives were widely recognized as a valuable part of the municipal issuer’s financial toolkit. Post-crisis, they have been a thorn in the side of many issuers, resulting in expensive litigation with failed swap providers – most notably the Lehman and Ambac derivatives trading subsidiaries – and public criticism of municipal issuers said to have fallen prey to more sophisticated providers.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed an order rejecting an objection to the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, LLC (together, Dynegy) for a lack of standing.
On June 10th, the FDIC published the final rule establishing the criteria for determining if a company is predominantly engaged in "activities that are financial in nature or incidental thereto" for purposes of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and therefore subject to the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority.
On June 10, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Quebecor World (USA) Inc. bankruptcy that payments made by a company in purchasing notes issued by an affiliate constituted transfers made in connection with a securities contract. Therefore, the payments were protected from avoidance by a "safe harbor" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Orrick covered the Quebecor decision in depth in the linked client memo.
In many Chapter 11 business bank - ruptcies, the office of the U.S. Trustee (the “UST”) will appoint a representative body of unsecured creditors (the “Com mittee”) to represent the interests of all unsecured creditors. The Committee is selected from unsecured creditors of the debtor who generally hold the largest unsecured claims against the debtor, are not “insiders” of the debtor and are willing to serve. A potential Committee member’s willingness to serve is demon strated through returning the creditor questionnaire to the UST and/or attending the formation meeting when scheduled.
Irving Picard, the trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act (the “Trustee”), 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa et seq. (“SIPA”), to administer the estate of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC, has brought hundreds of actions seeking to avoid transfers that were purportedly fraudulent or preferential (the “Avoidance Actions”). Some of the Avoidance Action defendants sought to withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Court, basing their motions on the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).
Congratulations! You have won your case and finally obtained a judgment against that owner or contractor who owes you money. Obtaining the judgment has not been easy. It has required hundreds of hours of time meeting with attorneys, collecting documents, printing e-mails, attending depositions and hearings, and perhaps even testifying at trial, not to mention the money spent on expert witnesses and attorneys. Given that justice has been served, has the time and expense of obtaining your judgment been worth it? Not necessarily.