(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

(7th Cir. July 27, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order finding that the debtor’s prepetition transfer of a farm to the defendant was a fraudulent transfer subject to avoidance. The debtor transferred the farm in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to abandon litigation he had brought against the debtor. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the farm. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Defendant: Pro Se

Attorney for Trustee: Brenda L. Zeddun

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 28, 2016)

A senior creditor can obtain significant leverage over a chapter 11 debtor if it is able to vote not only its claim but the claims of junior creditors in connection with the solicitation of a plan of reorganization. Obtaining such leverage, however, has proven problematic in the past. Among other things, courts have been reluctant to enforce pre-bankruptcy assignments or waivers of voting rights contained in intercreditor agreements, holding that such assignments or waivers may violate the Bankruptcy Code and rules. In Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC v.

Directors and officers of troubled companies are already keenly cognizant of their potential liability for any breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence and fraud.

On April 18, 2007, in Fla. Dep’t. of Rev. v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (In re Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the stamp tax exemption of 11 USC § 1146(c)2 may apply to transfers of assets that were necessary to the consummation of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and were made prior to confirmation of the plan. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit declined to follow decisions of the Third and Fourth Circuits to the contrary and thus created a split among the circuits on this issue.

On August 2, 2010, Maru E. Johansen, in her capacity as the foreign representative (the “Foreign Representative”)1 in respect of Mexican insolvency proceedings regarding Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexicana”), filed a petition for recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), commencing a case under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.2 Mexicana and its affiliates operate Mexicana Airlines, Mexico’s largest airline.

In response to the increasing complexity of cross-border restructurings and liquidations, a new chapter (Chapter 15) was added to the US Bankruptcy Code in 2005. Chapter 15 is meant to provide a framework for effectively and efficiently dealing with cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the United States by providing the representative of a foreign insolvency case with certain benefits and protections.

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Scotia Development, LLC,1 Judge Richard S. Schmidt denied the motions of several creditors and the State of California seeking transfer of venue from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, finding that venue was proper in Texas and that California would not be a more convenient forum for the financial restructuring of the debtors.

Background