On November 12th, the Third Circuit affirmed both bankruptcy and district court findings that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a claim seeking rescission of a mortgage filed in an adversarial action in federal bankruptcy court after a state court entered a default foreclosure order on that mortgage. The Third Circuit held further that the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff on her Truth in Lending Act claim was proper.

On April 12th, a federal district court addressed the in pari delicto defense, including the sole actor exception to the adverse interest exception. In the instant case, a litigation trust created in bankruptcy court to pursue the debtor's claims sued Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the debtor's founders' looting of the debtor's subsidiaries. Credit Suisse sought summary judgment, asserting the in pari delicto defense. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the founders so dominated the subsidiaries that the subsidiaries lacked a separate existence.

Kitchin Associates LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that is no longer in business. Richard Kitchin and his son were the members of Kitchin LLC and each held a 50% ownership interest in the entity. In a bankruptcy court proceeding, the Joan I. Glisson Trust asserted a claim against Mr. Kitchin in the amount of $257,047.63, arising from an unsatisfied mortgage loan to Kitchin LLC, the proceeds of which were used to purchase a property in Pennsylvania. Mr.

With the possibility of a major stock brokerage liquidation appearing more likely than it has been in recent periods, the effect of a liquidation on customers and financial counterparties has become of great interest to many of our clients and others.

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a complaint brought by Rosenman Family, LLC, an investor with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), against the trustee of BLMIS’s estate. The complaint alleged that Rosenman was entitled to a return of $10 million it wired to BLMIS, because, Rosenman argued, the funds were stolen or embezzled by BLMIS and thus never became BLMIS’s property and/or part of BLMIS’s bankruptcy estate.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.

The bankruptcy court overseeing the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 cases rejected efforts by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) to recover roughly $1 billion in payments made to numerous noteholder defendants from the liquidation of collateral originally pledged to secure both obligations under notes issued by special purpose entities and credit default swap (CDS) obligations to LBSF, holding that the termination of the swap and liquidation and distribution of the collateral were protected by the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor.

Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.