Skip to main content

%1

SDNY Bankruptcy Court Holds Attorney/Client Retainer Is Sufficient to Establish Chapter 11 Eligibility

On Feb. 1, 2022, Hon. David S. Jones of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss the chapter 11 cases of JPA No. 111 Co. Ltd. and JPA No. 49 Co. Ltd. (together, the “debtors”), each a Japanese single-purpose entity — finding that the debtors’ reversionary interest in unused retainer funds held by the debtors’ chapter 11 counsel established sufficient “ties” to the U.S. for purposes of chapter 11 eligibility under § 109 of the Bankruptcy Code [1].

Gotta Have (Good) Faith: The Second Circuit Defines the Contours of the “Good Faith” Defense in SIPA and Bankruptcy Proceedings

A recent Second Circuit decision has shed light on the framework of the “good faith” defense as it intersects with provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). Sections 548 and 550 of Bankruptcy Code[1] authorize trustees (and debtors-in-possession) to avoid fraudulent transfers and recover proceeds from transferees.

Best Practices for Remote Depositions

One of the many ways the COVID-19 pandemic has upended litigation is by making in-person depositions, for the time being, practically impossible. But cases must still go forward, so courts and parties have increasingly turned to remote deposition technology to keep litigation moving. To effectively represent their clients, counsel must ensure that the depositions they take and defend remotely are just as effective as in-person depositions for their eventual use in motion practice, hearings or trials. This article briefly describes some best practices that can help you meet that goal.

How to Determine Whether Actions Against Third Parties are Property of a Debtor’s Estate

When bankruptcy fiduciaries are appointed, one of their many duties is to identify and monetize property of the debtor’s estate. Frequently, such property may include a corporate debtor’s causes of action against its officers and directors, and related causes of action against the debtor’s professionals whose negligence may have driven the debtor into bankruptcy. In that context, disputes often arise as to whether a particular cause of action belongs to the debtor’s estate, or to certain, or all, of the debtor’s creditors.