The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion on Jan. 21, 2015,[1] holding that a UCC-3 termination statement was effective to extinguish a security interest of up to as much as $1.5 billion, notwithstanding that the secured lender erroneously authorized the filing of the termination statement and did not intend to extinguish the security interest.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court must conduct a § 363 review of a chapter 15 debtor’s sale of U.S. assets, even if the sale was previously approved by a foreign court.[1] Although it acknowledged that comity is an important consideration in a chapter 15 proceedings, the Second Circuit determined that § 1520(a)(2)[2] “acts as a brake or limitation on comity” by requiring bankruptcy courts to conduct the § 363[3] review.[4]
In 2012, ABI initiated a comprehensive analysis of chapter 11 business bankruptcy cases and possible reforms. Following a three-year review process, the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 recently issued its “2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations.”[1] ABI believed that such a report was appropriate in light of the changes in businesses, capital structures and the global marketplace since enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978.
A single-asset real estate (SARE) case is defined as “real property constituting a single property or project, other than residential real property with fewer than [four] residential units, which generates substantially all of the gross income of a debtor who is not a family farmer and on which no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the business of operating the real
In 2002, Hon. Robert E. Gerber of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York published In re Ames Dep’t Stores Inc.,[1] a case that has often been cited as being an innovative approach to addressing issues arising in debtor estates with numerous locations subject to unexpired real property leases.
ABI/St. John’s Bankruptcy Mediation Training will offer its fifth 40-hour training session this spring. In recognition of this grand achievement, we spoke with Elayne Greenberg, the program’s co-creator and facilitator. As a participant of the inaugural ABI/St. John’s mediation class of 2011, it was a pleasure to catch up with Elayne and learn how the program has grown since its inception.
In this edition of the Commercial Fraud Committee Newsletter, we introduce a new feature: an interview with a Commercial Fraud Committee member. Our inaugural interviewee is Richard Lauter, Commercial Fraud Committee Chair. Rich is a partner at Freeborn & Peters LLP in Chicago, where he leads his firm’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group.
Over the past several years, creditors, bankruptcy trustees and receivers have used § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) to “claw back” amounts paid to winning investors in a Ponzi scheme (i.e., payments made to investors greater than their investment).
A series of recent Tenth Circuit decisions illustrate the potential pitfalls defendants face in relying on the good faith and subsequent transferee defenses in fraudulent transfer avoidance claims.[1] In both cases, law firms were required to return fees they had undisputedly earned.
