On the surface, Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), had a very good day. Judge Jed S.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a debtor's explanation of estate planning as a rationale for asset transfers made prior to bankruptcy is sufficient to survive the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion for summary judgment. However, the Court noted that a deeper factual analysis would be required and expressed skepticism for the debtor's estate planning rationale.
The game is tied with three seconds to play in regulation: an inbounds pass, one dribble—and a long shot at the buzzer. It’s the drama we love and expect this month, but whether the result is the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat depends not only on whether the shot goes in but also whether it leaves the shooter’s hands before the buzzer sounds.1 Analogous madness arose this March in a recent complaint filed against an ad hoc group of hedge fund noteholders (the “Noteholders”) in Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust v.
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against Koch Industries, Inc., Madoff trustee Irving Picard is seeking $21.5 million, representing a return of the profits Koch Industries earned through Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Specifically, the trustee alleges that a subsidiary of Koch Industries funneled a substantial amount of its clients' funds into Bernard L.
A proposed bill entitled the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act and recently introduced to the Senate for the State of Michigan would regulate the use and enforceability of certain loan covenants in non-recourse commercial transactions. Presumably, the bill, Senate Bill No. 992 introduced on Feb. 29, 2012 and referred to the Committee on Economic Development, is in reaction to a recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals finding a guarantor liable for a deficiency claim notwithstanding the non-recourse nature of the loan. See Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall Ltd.
By order issued on February 23, 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina vacated the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Mammoth Grading, Inc. This decision and the companion decision in In re Harrelson Utilities, Inc. held that the lien rights of construction subcontractors and suppliers cannot be perfected once a bankruptcy petition is filed by a party higher in the contract chain.
Bankruptcy Courts may be courts of equity, but a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York holds that even equity can’t trump the plain words of a settlement agreement.
- Introduction
On Feb. 29, 2012, a Michigan citizens’ group opposed to the State of Michigan’s emergency financial manager law (officially entitled “Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act,” MCL §§ 141.1501 et seq. and referred to herein as the “Act”), filed petitions to place the issue of the Act’s rejection on the state ballot in November.
LEHMAN BANKRUPTCY
In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 08-13555
On March 6, 2012, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors announced that their Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, which had been confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on December 6, 2011, had become effective. Distributions under the Plan will begin on April 17, 2012.