In Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill, Ltd.), Adv. Pro. No. 09-8266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2011), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to a small, private leveraged buyout (LBO) transaction that posed no systemic risk to the stability of the financial markets.

Earlier this week, Barclays Capital Inc., the investment banking unit and capital markets unit of Barclays plc, and Lehman Brothers Inc., the brokerage unit of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., entered into a settlement under which Barclays Capital will receive approximately $689 million in cash and securities for securities belonging to customers of Lehman Brothers that were never transferred when Barclays plc closed the sale for Lehman Brothers on Septemb

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a state’s post-confirmation investigation of a debtor’s post-confirmation conduct does not violate a plan confirmation order that enjoins actions against the debtor.  In re Velo Holdings, Inc. et al., 500 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Yesterday, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LBHI (the Committee) filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss two proposed bills, H.R. 200, the “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009” and H.R. 225, the “Emergency Homeownership and Equity Protection Act", that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of certain mortgages on principal homes during bankruptcy proceedings. H.R.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

On Friday, Washington Mutual Inc. (WMI), the holding company that owned Washington Mutual Bank (WMB), filed a disclosure statement and amended reorganization plan with the U.S.

On January 6, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) re-introduced H.R. 200, “Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act.” First introduced in the fall of 2007 by Durbin in the Senate and by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in the House, this bill has been the subject of three hearings, but faces opposition primarily from Republicans and representatives of the mortgage industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.