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.
Where chapter 7 Trustees are now increasingly faced with the prospect of avoiding and recovering fraudulent transfers of a debtor’s pre-petition assets that implicate the concepts of extraterritoriality and foreign law, choosing the “right” foreign “applicable law” under Code section 544 causes of action, becomes increasingly important.
In a factually complex and quickly criticized opinion, a panel of the Tenth Circuit recently held that a chapter 7 trustee cannot maintain a fraudulent transfer action against subsequent transferees of a fraudulent transfer if the subsequent transferee receives only proceeds of the “property that was set aside as fraudulently transf
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.
The Commission recommended that section 550 be amended to permit the trustee to name an alleged subsequent transferee as a defendant in the original complaint to avoid any transfer under Bankruptcy Code sections 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 553(b), and to recover such property under section 550, rather than filing an avoidance action prior to filing a recovery action, as the Code currently requires.
Reid Collins & Tsai LLP
Maynard Nexsen, PC
Ice Miller LLC
New York, NY
Special Projects Leader
Gray Reed & McGraw LLP