Blogs

By: Jessica L. Macrina
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In a case of first impression, Lavie v. Ran (In re Ran),[1] the Fifth Circuit denied a petition for recognition of an Israeli bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 for an individual debtor because it did not qualify as a foreign main or foreign nonmain proceeding.[2] The court found that neither the debtor’s “center of main interest” (“COMI”) nor his “establishment” were located in Israel at the time the petition for recognition was filed.[3] Relying on both the statute’s use of the present tense and chapter 15’s stated purpose of international uniformity, the Fifth Circuit explicitly rejected the argument that the debtor’s COMI and his establishment should be determined at the time the foreign bankruptcy was filed.[4] 

By: Gregory A. Melnick
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently in Cadle Co. v. Mims (In re Moore),[1] the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a proposed settlement of estate claims is functionally equivalent to a sale that triggers section 363.[2] The Cadle Company (“Cadle”) was a major creditor of James Moore (“the Debtor”).[3] Prior to bankruptcy, the Cadle sued the Debtor, his wife, and two companies that allegedly were alter egos of the Debtor asserting both fraudulent conveyance and veil-piercing claims.[4] Although the causes of action passed to the trustee upon the bankruptcy filing, Cadle continued to fund the action, and eventually offered to purchase it from the trustee.[5]   While Cadle and the trustee were negotiating, the trustee agreed to settle the claims for $37,500.[6] Cadle objected to the settlement and offered to pay $50,000 for the claims.[7] The bankruptcy court approved the settlement, holding that the claims could not be sold as a matter of law.[8] The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that a proposed settlement triggers section 363's sale provisions.[9]

By: Melissa Schneer
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently, in Schleicher v. Wendt,[1] a magistrate judge in Indiana held that a post-bankruptcy corporation that acquired substantially all of the pre-bankruptcy corporation’s business operations also acquired the pre-bankruptcy corporation’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege.[2]  Schleicher involved a class action against four senior executives of a company, based on that company’s decline into bankruptcy.[3] The plaintiffs moved to compel the production of thousands of documents, which the defendants claimed were privileged.[4] The parties disputed whether control of the pre-bankruptcy corporation (the “Old Corporation”) — accompanied by the attorney-client privilege — passed through bankruptcy proceedings to the post-bankruptcy corporation (the “New Corporation”).[5] The court noted that the reorganized New Corporation did not obtain every aspect of the Old Corporation.[6] The New Corporation, however, did acquire all of the Old Corporation’s assets, sources of revenue and expense, and management as part of the reorganization.[7] As a result, the court opined that the New Corporation essentially gained control over the Old Corporation’s business operations.[8] Consequently, the court held that the New Corporation acquired the Old Corporation’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege.[9]

By: Jon H. Ruiss, Jr., CPA
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

Recently, in In re South Beach Securities, Inc., the Seventh Circuit affirmed the old adage that a bankruptcy court could not confirm a chapter 11 plan when the plan’s sole purpose is designed to make use of the debtor’s net operating losses (NOLs) as a tax benefit for the creditor.[1] The plan intended to obtain a tax deduction for the debtor’s sole creditor through the plan.[2] In a scolding opinion by Judge Posner, the court held that the plan violated of section 1129(d), and therefore, was proposed in bad faith.[3]  Section 1129(d) states that a plan cannot be confirmed when its principal purpose is tax avoidance.[4]

By: Mark Sicari
St. John's Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In S.E.C. v. Byers[1], the Second Circuit determined that the district court had the equitable authority to enter an anti-litigation injunction that prohibited creditors from filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition against a debtor that is in an SEC receivership.[2] Responding to a $250 million Ponzi scheme perpetrated by the debtor companies, the SEC requested immediate injunctive relief from the district court.[3] The court appointed a receiver and entered an anti-litigation injunction.[4] Specifically, the injunction prevented creditors from filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition.[5] The Second Circuit affirmed the injunction, explaining that the district court’s equitable powers enabled it to keep the receivership assets out of bankruptcy.[6]