Joseph N Argentina Jr

January 13, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the interesting and often ­misunderstood roles in a ­bankruptcy case is the appointment and ­participation of official committees, most often the official committee of unsecured creditors. The creditors' committee is appointed by the Office of the U.S. Trustee at the outset of the bankruptcy case. Participation on the committee is a voluntary and unpaid position. The committee is usually of a size between three and seven members picked from the ­largest 20 unsecured creditors. The committee elects a member to act as chair. The role of the committee is to act as a representative of the entire unsecured creditor body by, including but not limited to investigating ­matters relevant to the debtor's financial condition, operations and formulation of a plan of reorganization, and participating in the formation of a plan. Committee ­members by definition hold their own ­individual claims against the debtor, but as committee members they are supposed to act in the interest of all creditors.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

14 minute read

December 02, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the powerful tools ­vailable to a debtor in bankruptcy is the ability to review existing pre-bankruptcy contracts and determine which contracts should be assumed or rejected. Any party can breach its obligations under a contract; however, in bankruptcy, when a debtor decides to reject—meaning breach the contract, the damages in most cases can be treated like any other unsecured claim and be discharged along with all other pre-bankruptcy claims. Of course, it is often not that simple. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, the provision that addresses executory contracts, is one of the most lengthy and complex provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Often, the court must first determine if the contract is "executory." In a recent decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, the court was asked to determine whether a state court settlement agreement between the debtor and a homeowner's association was rejected in the debtor's bankruptcy case, and the consequences of rejection. In a decision issued in In re Spoverlook, dated Oct. 7, the court rejected the argument ­advanced by the homeowner's association that rejection would violate a state court order, and approved rejection of the ­settlement agreement.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

15 minute read

August 30, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

The end of August means two things to many parents—the annual family vacation and the semi-annual ritual of writing those large tuition checks to the college of their children's choice. As many of us load our cars with our children's random belongings and drive them to school, today we report on an interesting decision issued on Aug. 10, by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman of the District of Massachusetts.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

12 minute read

July 18, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the policies behind the ­bankruptcy process is bringing ­disputes regarding the debtor into one forum to avoid piecemeal litigation and ­dismemberment of the debtor's business and assets. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides the bankruptcy trustee with the power to bring actions on behalf of creditors against third parties, the proceeds of which are returned to the bankruptcy ­estate for distribution to all creditors in order of priority.

By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

13 minute read

June 03, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

We have been reporting on key developments in the restructuring and bankruptcy area for almost six years. When our reported case decisions involve a remand from the appellate courts, we follow them to conclusion.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

10 minute read

April 15, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

The court held that creditors could pursue a fraudulent transfer action in state court on behalf of the estate during the pendency of the bankruptcy case to avoid transfers of property by Steven Rosenblum to a friend and his father.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

15 minute read

March 04, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

The interplay between the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other federal laws often requires the court to balance competing federal policy considerations.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

7 minute read

January 15, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

One of the fundamental principles of bankruptcy law is the absolute priority rule, which provides that the proceeds of a bankruptcy estate should be distributed first to creditors in order of priority and, if and when creditors are paid in full, to equity holders. While this appears to be a simple and straightforward legal doctrine, bankruptcy courts often are presented with difficult questions regarding when distributions would violate the rule, such as when creditors agree to "gift" part of their distributions to others under a plan of reorganization.

By Andrew C. Kassner 
and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

7 minute read

November 20, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In most bankruptcy cases where the business is being sold or liquidated, the two primary sources of funds for distribution to creditors are sale proceeds and avoidance claim recoveries from preference and fraudulent transfer actions. Fraudulent transfer actions can be quite complex. Interesting issues arise when the defendant is not the initial recipient of the fraudulent transfer from the debtor, but rather a subsequent recipient of those funds. In many of these cases, the subsequent transferee never did any business with the debtor itself, actually extended value to the initial recipient of the fraudulent transfer, and found itself embroiled in litigation with the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor's estate. Such a situation was recently reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Brandt v. Horseshoe Hammond LLC, Case No. 14-2174 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015). In this case, the court reviewed whether a bankruptcy trustee could recover over $8 million from a casino where the debtor's principal gambled regularly for years with funds fraudulently transferred to him and his wife from the debtor. While the court ultimately affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the casino, this case illustrates the dangers of unknowingly dealing with recipients of fraudulent transfers.

By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

9 minute read

November 19, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In most bankruptcy cases where the business is being sold or liquidated, the two primary sources of funds for distribution to creditors are sale proceeds and avoidance claim recoveries from preference and fraudulent transfer actions. Fraudulent transfer actions can be quite complex. Interesting issues arise when the defendant is not the initial recipient of the fraudulent transfer from the debtor, but rather a subsequent recipient of those funds. In many of these cases, the subsequent transferee never did any business with the debtor itself, actually extended value to the initial recipient of the fraudulent transfer, and found itself embroiled in litigation with the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor's estate. Such a situation was recently reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Brandt v. Horseshoe Hammond LLC, Case No. 14-2174 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2015). In this case, the court reviewed whether a bankruptcy trustee could recover over $8 million from a casino where the debtor's principal gambled regularly for years with funds fraudulently transferred to him and his wife from the debtor. While the court ultimately affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the casino, this case illustrates the dangers of unknowingly dealing with recipients of fraudulent transfers.

By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.

9 minute read