On January 31, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that approved the confirmation of the proposed plan in In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC.

It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. An individual walks into a bar and says “Where’s my LLC?” But that was the question a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently had to answer. The court had to determine whether Nevada was the proper venue in an involuntary bankruptcy case. The debtor’s only connection with Nevada was that his principal assets consisted of interests in a Nevada LLC and a Nevada limited partnership.

Key Points

In a decision issued yesterday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that insiders can't be given a special opportunity to invest in a bankrupt debtor under the guise of contributing "new value" unless the debtor makes the same investment opportunity available to other potential investors.

In preparing a statement supporting the determination that recusal from a bankruptcy proceeding was unnecessary, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Richard E. Fehling quoted Master Sergeant Georg Hans Shultz from the television sitcom Hogan’s Heroes: “I KNOW NOTHING!  NOTHING!”

In re Sea Trail Corporation, Case No. 11-07370- 8-SWH (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Oct. 23, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decisions of the courts below and held in an unpublished opinion that a secured lender’s credit bid at a Michigan foreclosure sale extinguished all of the Chapter 13 debtor’s indebtedness to the lender, thereby precluding the lender from executing on a prepetition foreclosure judgment obtained against the debtor in Wisconsin. State Bank of Florence v. Miller (In re Miller), 2013 WL 425342 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013).

By nearly any measure, the Chapter 11 cases of Hawker Beechcraft and its affiliates (the “Debtors”) stand as a significant success. The cases began as a standalone reorganization predicated upon a restructuring support agreement (the “RSA”) among the Debtors’ senior lenders and noteholders, which soon thereafter gained the support of the

On February 4th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by plaintiffs, who controlled a mutual bank before it collapsed, against the FDIC as both regulator and as receiver. The Administrative Procedures Act (the "APA") claim against the FDIC as regulator, which seeks money damages and an order directing the FDIC to treat $23.6 million in subordinated debt as bank deposits, is a claim for substitute relief barred by the APA.

The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.