The doctrine of in pari delicto is “[t]he principle that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.” [1] This article seeks to provide a general overview of the in pari delicto doctrine, and the relevant intersections between the doctrine and its exceptions.
Committees
We are closing to books on an eventful 2023 and looking forward to a busy 2024. Between the travails of FTX and the numerous lesser frauds, the expertise of our members is in constant demand. This coming year, we plan to host webinars and committee video calls, which will resemble webinars but will be interactive.
The Supreme Court may have expanded the types of debts that are exempt from discharge under § 523 of the Code. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley [1], the Court held that § 523 bars the discharge of a debt arising from fraud committed by the debtor’s business partner.
The Bankruptcy Code includes nine defenses to a trustee’s ability to avoid a pre-petition transfer as a preference. One of those defenses — codified at 11 U.S.C.
A new administration always brings changes to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Whereas here the new President is of a different party than the outgoing President, changes are more pronounced. The composition of the Commission changes moving from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority.
Conducting a thorough investigation of a debtor’s pre-petition activity can yield potential preference and fraudulent-transfer claims that can be valuable assets in a bankruptcy estate. Identifying potentially avoidable transfers goes hand in hand with evaluating the debtor’s financial condition to determine whether the debtor was insolvent when the transfer was made.
Bank records are of particular interest and importance to forensic accountants and receivers, as they reflect an entity’s actual financial history. In fact, bank records can tell a powerful story. We identified bank statements in several of our investigations that were electronically manipulated to reflect deceptive and fraudulent statement entries.
2020 presented many challenges to our personal and professional lives. It is a year we will not soon forget. On a positive note, it was a great opportunity for many of us to get to know our colleagues on a more personal level. By Zooming from our home offices, kitchen counters or in some cases, a laundry room, it provided us insights we would not have had without COVID-19.
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked economic havoc and created a breeding ground for fraud. Existing swindles will be uncovered as victims seeking liquidity attempt to withdraw their funds only to find that their rock solid investment was nothing but smoke. New scams will arise. Many investors desperately need income or growth that traditional investments can no longer provide.
Ponzi and other fraudulent schemes continue to proliferate. Many of these schemes, event if primarily targeted at Americans, operate using offshore entities in the Caribbean. As a result, resolving such schemes typically involves domestic receiverships or bankruptcy coupled with offshore liquidation proceedings. The victims’ recoveries may vary widely depending on whether the distribution of the scheme’s remaining assets is determined by U.S. bankruptcy law, U.S. common law or foreign law. This panel will explore the various ways in which U.S.
Over the last several years, an increasing number of states, including New York, have adopted the UniformVoidable Transactions Act (UVTA), the latest update to the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. The UVTA made a number of minor changes and updates to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), including changingthe name. What changes were significant? What opportunities to fix problems/vagaries in the UFTA did the drafters miss? What amendments should the UVTA drafters consider?
Recent large bankruptcies like NRA, Boy Scouts of America, Roman Catholic Archdiocese, Purdue Pharma and J&J have invigorated debate over the longstanding issues of venue and bad faith in bankruptcy. This panel will explore matters surrounding venue and bad-faith filings, related ethics considerations, and the newest wave of reform initiatives.
The webinar panel, comprised of bankruptcy lawyers, a panel bankruptcy trustee and a financial advisor, will delve into what occurs when an individual debtor files bankruptcy and fails to properly disclose their assets. The discussion will include methods of investigating and discovering hidden assets and the means by which a trustee can successfully recover the assets for the bankruptcy estate. The panel will also address defenses that a debtor may raise, including exemptions, tenants by the entirety, or business assets transferred to trusts.
Hosted by the Bankruptcy Litigation and Commercial Fraud Committees. This panel will explore whether and how far U.S. avoidance provisions might apply extraterritorially, and will discuss the challenges and pitfalls of alternate theories of recovery.
This webinar will focus on the criminal bankruptcy fraud provisions of Title 28. The presentation will use examples from well-known bankruptcy fraud cases to illustrate how these laws play out in practice. The presentation will also touch on other criminal statutes (e.g., mail and wire fraud) that are frequently implicated in bankruptcy fraud cases.
In Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., No. 13-11305 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), arising from the SEC enforcement action against Stanford International Bank, Ltd., pending in the U.S. District Court for the N.D. Tex., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether trade creditors who fully perform in the ordinary course at market rates provide reasonably equivalent value to a Ponzi scheme, under the Bankruptcy Code and fraudulent transfer law in Texas (and beyond).
This panel hosted by the Commercial Fraud and Secured Credit Committee will take a fresh look at secured creditor rights and unique solvency issues in fraud and Ponzi cases. Learn how to avoid being trumped in federal forfeiture proceedings or paying on bankruptcy clawback claims by treading in the safe harbor of § 546(e) — and learn how to navigate the shoals of receivership.
The topic of the most recent Commercial Fraud Committee call, discussed the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), formerly named the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which was amended (and retitled) in 2014 for the first time since its creation in 1984. According to the Uniform Law Commission, the amended Act, which strengthens creditor protections by providing remedies for certain transactions by a debtor that are unfair to the debtor’s creditors, addresses a small number of narrowly-defined issues and is not a comprehensive revision of the Act.
Guest speaker, James Lodoen, Esq., a partner at Linquist & Vennum, PLLP in Minneapolis, discusses Finn v. Alliance Bank (S. Ct. Minn. 2015), Kelley v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, et al. (In re Petters Company, Inc., et al.) (Bankr. D. Minn. May 31, 2016), and the Ponzi-scheme presumption.
Pages
- 1
- 2
Co-Chair
Reid Collins & Tsai LLP
Austin, TX
(512) 647-6107
Co-Chair
Maynard Nexsen PC
Birmingham, AL
(205) 254-1854
Communications Manager
Maynard Nexsen PC
Birmingham, AL
(205) 254-1875
Education Director
Ice Miller LLC
New York, NY
(212) 835-6315
Membership Relations Director
Mourant Ozannes
Camana Bay,
Newsletter Editor
Reid Collins & Tsai LLP
Austin, TX
(512) 647-6132
Special Projects Leader
Gray Reed LLP
Dallas, TX
(469) 320-6050