Financial vehicles – Purple Ribbon Project http://purpleribbonproject.com/ Fri, 13 May 2022 13:58:21 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://purpleribbonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-12.png Financial vehicles – Purple Ribbon Project http://purpleribbonproject.com/ 32 32 Biotech companies most at risk of bankruptcy https://purpleribbonproject.com/biotech-companies-most-at-risk-of-bankruptcy/ Fri, 13 May 2022 13:58:21 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/biotech-companies-most-at-risk-of-bankruptcy/ Insider gained exclusive access to bankruptcy risk ratings to identify vulnerable biotechs. The biotech market has fallen 42% this year, putting cash-strapped or debt-ridden companies at risk. The CreditRiskMonitor firm has highlighted 10 biotechs at high risk of bankruptcy. 2022 has been a terrible, horrible, not good, very bad year for biotechnology. The industry has […]]]>
  • Insider gained exclusive access to bankruptcy risk ratings to identify vulnerable biotechs.
  • The biotech market has fallen 42% this year, putting cash-strapped or debt-ridden companies at risk.
  • The CreditRiskMonitor firm has highlighted 10 biotechs at high risk of bankruptcy.

2022 has been a terrible, horrible, not good, very bad year for biotechnology.

The industry has suffered from the broader market environment and some biotechnology-specific forces. Overall, investors turned away from riskier growth-stage companies as inflation and interest rates rose. This pivot stung biotechnology, an industry comprised mostly of money-losing companies with intensive cash needs.

Biotech hasn’t helped itself either, with a wave of failed clinical trials and a lack of mergers and acquisitions. The end result was the main biotech stock index down 42% in 2022 and around 60% from a peak in February 2021.

Biotech showing no signs of recovery yet, Insider gets exclusive data from the credit analysis firm CreditRiskMonitor identify the most vulnerable biotechs. By analyzing more than 600 biotech companies provided by Insider, CreditRiskMonitor has identified 10 biotech companies with the highest risk of bankruptcy with market capitalizations of at least $50 million.

Credit Risk Monitor FRISK score scale

Credit Risk Monitor FRISK score scale

Credit Risk Monitor


The company uses FRISK scores to assess the risk of bankruptcy over the next 12 months. The 10-point scale is used by credit and supply chain professionals to assess the financial health of companies they may extend credit to or work with. CreditRiskMonitor says 35% of Fortune 1000 companies use the service and the FRISK score has an accuracy rating of 96%.

Bankruptcies are a rare phenomenon in biotechnology. More often than not, struggling biotechs can become shells in reverse merger deals or simply shut down their operations. Struggling microbiome company Kaleido Biosciences did just that earlier this year, decide to end all activities in April.

But bankruptcies still happen, especially during severe recessions. Since the beginning of the year, three biotechnology companies have filed for bankruptcy: the Canadian cannabis and psychedelic company BC Craft Supply Co., danish biotech Orphazyme, and Florida-based Generex Biotechnology. In the months leading up to their filings, the three companies had respective FRISK scores of 1, 2 and 1.

Here are the 10 biotechs at high risk of bankruptcy, ranked by market capitalization.

]]>
Disgraced art dealer Douglas Chrismas ordered to repay $14.2 million in profits from art sales https://purpleribbonproject.com/disgraced-art-dealer-douglas-chrismas-ordered-to-repay-14-2-million-in-profits-from-art-sales/ Wed, 11 May 2022 00:58:10 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/disgraced-art-dealer-douglas-chrismas-ordered-to-repay-14-2-million-in-profits-from-art-sales/ Former gallery owner Douglas Chrismas has been ordered to repay $14.2 million in profits from the sale of artwork from his former gallery that he diverted to personal accounts. The summary judgment rendered on May 4 by the US Central District Court of California marks another low point for a dealer who once moved to […]]]>

Former gallery owner Douglas Chrismas has been ordered to repay $14.2 million in profits from the sale of artwork from his former gallery that he diverted to personal accounts. The summary judgment rendered on May 4 by the US Central District Court of California marks another low point for a dealer who once moved to the highest echelons of the art market.

Chrismas was considered at the forefront of the Los Angeles art scene in the 1980s and 1990s, curating exhibitions for artists such as Robert Motherwell, Michael Heizer and Robert Irwin at his now defunct Ace Gallery. But financial problems overtook his reputation, and Chrismas was repeatedly sued by his artists for non-payment and theft of artwork, while his landlords sought to recover unpaid rent. By 2006, he had filed for bankruptcy 11 times, preventing creditors from collecting the money owed to them.

In 2013, Chrismas again filed for bankruptcy, but continued to run Ace Gallery until 2016, when bankruptcy trustee and forensic accountant Sam Leslie was put in charge of the business. Leslie discovered that a total of approximately $17 million had been transferred to two accounts known as “ACE New York” and “ACE Museum”. Both organizations were shell corporations controlled by Chrismas. Additionally, in the midst of the changing of the guard, Chrismas had at least 60 works of art that had not been considered in his bankruptcy filing, transferred to private storage.

Last summer, Chrismas was arrested in Los Angeles by the FBI on embezzlement charges related to the embezzlement of funds from his bankruptcy case, totaling approximately $260,000. While the federal case was unfolding, Leslie had filed a civil lawsuit seeking to recover the sales profit that Chrismas had transferred to personal accounts. On May 4, after five years of investigation, the U.S. Central District Court in California ruled in Leslie’s favor. Summary judgment — which is often given when a case includes overwhelming and undeniable evidence in one party’s favor — was entered instead of a trial, ordering Chrismas to pay $14.2 million.

Although Chrismas has tried to keep his footing in the art world by continuing to deal with works by lesser-known artists throughout his recent legal troubles, Leslie’s representatives at law firm SulmeyerKupetz insist that all funds recovered will be distributed to plaintiffs in summary judgment. . Leslie’s attorneys added that there was no way to know how their client’s victory in the civil suit would affect Chrismas’ upcoming criminal case. If convicted of all federal charges, he will face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Noel’s attorneys had not responded to requests for comment at press time.

Even at the height of his career, Chrismas was no stranger to scandal. He had ties to a notorious scammer Ron Levindied under mysterious circumstances during the Billionaire Boys Club murders in 1984. He was also involved in a Billion Dollar International Art Fraud Case after selling a contraband Roy Lichtenstein in 2007.

]]>
Armstrong Flooring Files Voluntary Chapter 11 Petitions; Continue to pursue the sale of the business through the Chapter 11 process https://purpleribbonproject.com/armstrong-flooring-files-voluntary-chapter-11-petitions-continue-to-pursue-the-sale-of-the-business-through-the-chapter-11-process/ Mon, 09 May 2022 06:17:03 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/armstrong-flooring-files-voluntary-chapter-11-petitions-continue-to-pursue-the-sale-of-the-business-through-the-chapter-11-process/ Armstrong Flooring, Inc. The company will continue to fulfill orders and commitments to stakeholders, providing the highest levels of innovation, quality and service LANCASTER, Pa., May 09, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: AFI), a leader in the design and manufacture of innovative flooring solutions (“Armstrong Flooring” or “the Company”) , announcing today […]]]>

Armstrong Flooring, Inc.

The company will continue to fulfill orders and commitments to stakeholders, providing the highest levels of innovation, quality and service

LANCASTER, Pa., May 09, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: AFI), a leader in the design and manufacture of innovative flooring solutions (“Armstrong Flooring” or “the Company”) , announcing today announced that the Company and certain of its subsidiaries have filed for voluntary protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As an extension of its ongoing sale process, the Company intends to pursue an effective and value-maximizing sale of its business through a competitive Chapter 11 sale process. in China and Australia will not be included in the Chapter 11 filing, but they are part of the sales process.

In December 2021, Armstrong Flooring retained the services of Houlihan Lokey Capital Inc. to assist in a process to sell the company as well as review other strategic alternatives. The sale process continues and Armstrong Flooring hopes to complete an orderly sale of the entire business or its major assets as soon as possible.

“Our company and our team members have worked diligently to strengthen our financial footing in the face of several macroeconomic trends, including supply chain challenges, the current inflationary environment and the continued headwinds of the COVID-19 pandemic. 19,” said Michel Vermette, President and Chef. Executive Officer. “With the support of our Board of Directors, we have determined that using the Chapter 11 process to effect a potential sale is the right next step for our company. As we have said previously, we strongly believe in the value and potential of Armstrong Flooring and are confident that this final action places us in the best possible position to preserve and maximize value for our stakeholders. In the meantime, we are open for business and remain firmly committed to our customers, suppliers and employees as we navigate the path forward. »

In order to fund and preserve its operations during the Chapter 11 process, the company entered into a credit agreement, subject to bankruptcy court approval, providing for $30 million in debtor-in-possession financing ( “DIP”). Once approved by the bankruptcy court, the DIP financing will provide Armstrong Flooring with the cash needed to operate and cover administrative expenses as it pursues a value-maximizing sale.

The company will file certain petitions in bankruptcy court seeking customary relief that will allow Armstrong Flooring to move into Chapter 11 with the least disruption to its day-to-day operations, including support for employee salary payments and certain programs. benefits. The Company expects these motions to be approved within the first few days of the case.

For more information on the Armstrong Flooring Chapter 11 case, please visit http://dm.epiq11.com/ArmstrongFlooringE-mail ArmstrongFlooringInfo@epiqglobal.com or call (888) 905-0459 for US calls or +1 (503) 597-5611 for international calls.

The Company is represented in this matter by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as legal counsel, Houlihan Lokey Capital Inc. as investment banker and Riveron RTS, LLC as financial counsel.

About Armstrong Flooring
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (NYSE: IFA) is a global leader in the design and manufacture of innovative flooring solutions that inspire beauty wherever you are. Based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Armstrong Flooring continually builds on its 150-year-old resilient heritage as it fulfills its mission to create a stronger future for its customers through adaptive and inventive solutions. The company safely and responsibly operates seven manufacturing facilities around the world, striving to provide the highest levels of service, quality and innovation to ensure it remains as strong and vital as its legacy of 150 years. Learn more about www.armstrongflooring.com.

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautions
The information in this release and in our other public materials and comments contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements provide our future expectations or forecasts and can be identified by our use of words such as “anticipate”, “estimate”, “expect”, “project”, “intend”, “plan”, “believe”, “envision”, “target”, “predict”, “may” , “will”, “would”, “could”, “should”, “seek” and other words or expressions of similar meaning in connection with any discussion of future operating or financial performance. Forward-looking statements, by their nature, deal with uncertain matters and involve risks because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future.As a result, our actual results may differ materially from our expected results and those expressed in our forward-looking statements. A more detailed discussion of the risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those projected, anticipated or implied is included in our reports filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements beyond what is required under applicable securities laws.

Contact:

]]>
Michigan Weighs on Bankruptcy Tax Foreclosure Excesses https://purpleribbonproject.com/michigan-weighs-on-bankruptcy-tax-foreclosure-excesses/ Fri, 06 May 2022 19:39:24 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/michigan-weighs-on-bankruptcy-tax-foreclosure-excesses/ In January, Miller Canfield reported on Lowry v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (In re Lowry)[1]an opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lowry ruled that a bankrupt taxpayer could challenge a Michigan tax foreclosure sale under the federal bankruptcy fraudulent conveyances law. The property in question Lowry was worth far more than the unpaid […]]]>

In January, Miller Canfield reported on Lowry v. Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (In re Lowry)[1]an opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lowry ruled that a bankrupt taxpayer could challenge a Michigan tax foreclosure sale under the federal bankruptcy fraudulent conveyances law. The property in question Lowry was worth far more than the unpaid taxes. The tax authority acquired the property for the taxes due and effectively kept the surplus.

Miller Canfield noted that Lowry could open the door to further challenges to tax seizures. A recent ruling from the Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Court, West vs Michigan State (In re West),[2] alleviate this concern. The facts in West were similar to those of Lowry but for two crucial differences: the property was sold at public auction, and the taxpayer had the right to claim any excess. As previously reported, in 2020 the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that counties are not allowed to retain sale proceeds that exceed taxes owed on a foreclosed property.[3] In response, effective January 1, 2021, the Michigan Legislature amended the Tax Foreclosure Act to create a procedure for taxpayers to claim any excess proceeds.

In West, a debtor purchased property in Owosso for $130,000 in 2016. He failed to pay his 2018 taxes and the property was forfeited to Shiawassee County in 2020. State of Michigan initiated foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the county. The amended tax foreclosure law was in effect when, in 2021, a foreclosure judgment was entered on the property. The judgment was not appealed and the property was not redeemed. On March 31, 2021, title deeds vested in the State. In August, the property sold at public auction for $160,000. It appears that the debtor did not follow the required procedure to claim the excess proceeds.

In July 2021, the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In December, he sued the state, county, and property purchasers, claiming the seizure constituted a fraudulent conveyance under federal law. on bankruptcy. the West The court noted that the property had been sold at public auction and therefore the price paid was presumably reasonable. The new statutory process under Michigan’s General Property Tax Act provided for the recovery of excess proceeds. The debtor “was given the legal right to claim the excess proceeds” under the Amended Tax Seizure Act, which had a reasonably equivalent value to the forfeited property. The court held that the “debtor’s failure to avail himself of the possibility of recovering the excess proceeds” did not make the seizure a fraudulent conveyance by construction.

The holding of West is that a tax foreclosure is not a fraudulent conveyance” when a tax foreclosure sale complies with state law and the tax foreclosure sale procedures provide at least some market forces to approximate the value of the property (i.e. a tender)”, and the debtor has a reasonable opportunity to claim any excess proceeds. Although opinion in West is not binding on other courts, its reasoning would be considered by other Michigan bankruptcy courts hearing the matter.


FOOTNOTES

[1] Case No. 20-1712, 2021 WL 6112972 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021).

[2] Case No. 21-03039, 2022 WL 1309939 (Bankr. ED Mich. May 2, 2022).

[3] Rafaeli vs. Oakland County505 Michigan 429 (2020).

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 126

]]>
U.S. Supreme Court to assess whether wife liable in bankruptcy for husband’s fraud https://purpleribbonproject.com/u-s-supreme-court-to-assess-whether-wife-liable-in-bankruptcy-for-husbands-fraud/ Mon, 02 May 2022 23:09:00 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/u-s-supreme-court-to-assess-whether-wife-liable-in-bankruptcy-for-husbands-fraud/ A arrives at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, New York, U.S., January 9, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register Husband’s cheating on house sale could impact his bankrupt wife Buyer says wife can’t avoid damage even though she didn’t know about […]]]>

A arrives at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, New York, U.S., January 9, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

  • Husband’s cheating on house sale could impact his bankrupt wife
  • Buyer says wife can’t avoid damage even though she didn’t know about fraud

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case to determine whether a bankrupt person is responsible for the fraud of her business partner – and husband – even though she was unaware actions of his partner.

California resident Kate Bartenwerfer has asked the High Court to overturn an August 9th ruling by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals that she cannot use bankruptcy to escape a judgment resulting from fraudulent omissions that her husband made when selling their house. The pair were business partners in addition to being married, having originally purchased the home with the intention of flipping it, according to court documents.

Bartenwerfer’s lawyers argued in his December speech petition for certiorari that the issue “potentially affects any joint transaction or venture that could be construed as a partnership, including transactions involving married people and couples, even the sale of a family home.”

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

The dispute arose after a San Francisco homebuyer, Kieran Buckley, sued the Bartenwerfers, alleging they hid information about major defects and led him to believe the home was in “good condition. health,” Buckley’s attorneys said in court documents.

A lawyer for Buckley declined to comment.

The couple said Bartenwerfer had no way of knowing the house’s structural flaws, in part because the couple had not lived in the house in the months leading up to the sale.

After a California jury returned a verdict in Buckley’s favor in 2012, awarding him more than $600,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees, the couple jointly filed for bankruptcy.

While bankruptcy is generally used to clear debts, those resulting from fraudulent activity cannot be discharged through bankruptcy proceedings.

The 9th Circuit ruled in August that Bartenwerfer could not discharge damages “regardless of his knowledge of the fraud.” The court relied on the 1885 Supreme Court decision in Strang v. Bradner, that a person cannot escape a monetary judgment based on the fact that it was incurred by the actions of his business partner without his knowledge.

Bartenwerfer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court should take the case to resolve a circuit split. While the 9th Circuit’s decision was consistent with the 5th and 11th Circuits’ decisions, the 7th and 8th Circuits concluded that a debtor must have some knowledge of his partner’s fraudulent activity to be held liable.

The case is Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, United States Supreme Court, No. 21-908.

For Bartenwerfer: Iain Macdonald and Reno Fernandez of Macdonald Fernandez

For Buckley: Zachary Tripp of Weil Gotshal & Manges; and Janet Marie Brayer of the Law Offices of Janet Brayer

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

North Dakota

Jeremy R. Alexander, Isanti, Minnesota, Chapter 7

Randal L. Holweger, II, Grand Forks, Chapter 7

Kristy J. Schroeder, Minot, Chapter 7

Ryan Joseph Elliott, Minot, Chapter 7

Daniel Paul and Moira Marie Myronenko, Watford City, Chapter 7

Mathew Vincent Steinkuehler, Grand Forks, Chapter 7

Michael S. Colton, Thompson, Chapter 7

Richard Allen Strom, Lincoln, Chapter 7

Kelly Lee Anderson, Grandin, Chapter 7

Donald Christian Kenna, Fargo, Chapter 7

Michelle Ann Storrusten, West Fargo, Chapter 7

Michael Bryan Caulfield, Jamestown, Chapter 7

Katherine Marie Dunn, Bismarck, Chapter 7

Minnesota

Bankruptcy filings from the following counties: Becker, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Hubbard, Mahnomen, Norman, Otter Tail, Polk, Traverse, Wadena and Wilkin.

Brent Loren Anderson, Detroit Lakes, Chapter 7

Mary Anne Dunn, Henning, Chapter 7

Heather M. Jackson, Fergus Falls, Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is a petition to liquidate assets and discharge debts.

Chapter 11 is a request for creditor protection and reorganization.

Chapter 12 is a petition for family farmers to reorganize.

Chapter 13 is a petition for wage earners to readjust their debts.

]]> Major US architecture firm EYP files for bankruptcy and may sell to subsidiary of Bitcoin miner | News https://purpleribbonproject.com/major-us-architecture-firm-eyp-files-for-bankruptcy-and-may-sell-to-subsidiary-of-bitcoin-miner-news/ Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:34:31 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/major-us-architecture-firm-eyp-files-for-bankruptcy-and-may-sell-to-subsidiary-of-bitcoin-miner-news/ anchor Rendering XO Skeleton by EYP Architecture & Engineering. Photo: EYP Architecture & Engineering. The American company EYP Architecture + Engineering has filed for bankruptcy due to pressure from debt securities. The company, based in Albany, New York, has 11 offices across the United States and […]]]>

anchor




Rendering XO Skeleton by EYP Architecture & Engineering. Photo: EYP Architecture & Engineering.



The American company EYP Architecture + Engineering has filed for bankruptcy due to pressure from debt securities. The company, based in Albany, New York, has 11 offices across the United States and employs 470 people. The company filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware over $149 million in debt.

To deal with its debt burden, EYP agreed to a deal to sell itself to Ault Alliance Inc for $68 million. Ault is a subsidiary of BitNilea cryptocurrency-focused company that owns and operates its own data center for bitcoin mining and provides products focused on disruptive technologies.

Related on Archinect: An LLC Attached to Helmut Jahn’s Former Business Has Now Filed for Bankruptcy

Yahoo Finance Reports that Ault will make a job offer to all current EYP employees, and that the company’s ongoing projects should not be disrupted by the sale, which is expected to be completed by June 2022.

According to EYP, the decision to file for bankruptcy was unrelated to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather was the result of long-standing complications with its debts and lawsuits filed by former employees.

Related on Archinect: Architect Sues Client for Using Works Without Payment or Permission After Being Fired from Project

According to Reuters, a lawsuit filed by employees accuses former EYP shareholder Long Point Capital of deceiving employees by selling their stake in the company to an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) in exchange for tickets without value. EYP is not listed as a defendant in the case, but has “significant” indemnification obligations to former directors who are defendants.

EYP has been featured in several Archinect stories in recent years, including numerous awards. In 2015, the company was listed among the top 50 companies in the United States by Architect magazineincluding the highest score for sustainability, while in 2017 the company received first prize in the Office Building category for the Rethinking the Future Awards.

Last year, EYP was one of 19 companies to participate in the NOMA Foundation Fellowship, which saw 24 architecture students matched with leading architecture firms for research and future employment. potential.

















]]>
Phil Ivey Company Sues Bankruptcy Over Cannabis Investment Files https://purpleribbonproject.com/phil-ivey-company-sues-bankruptcy-over-cannabis-investment-files/ Thu, 28 Apr 2022 02:00:00 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/phil-ivey-company-sues-bankruptcy-over-cannabis-investment-files/ Phil Ivey the chances of collecting on the $1.9 million line of credit he granted to a Las Vegas cannabis dispensary investor may have diminished, as the company he is suing filed for a wager bankrupt. On April 11, a company that Ivey originally helped fund in 2014 – NuVeda, LLC – filed for Chapter […]]]>

Phil Ivey the chances of collecting on the $1.9 million line of credit he granted to a Las Vegas cannabis dispensary investor may have diminished, as the company he is suing filed for a wager bankrupt.

On April 11, a company that Ivey originally helped fund in 2014 – NuVeda, LLC – filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In June 2020, the poker pro was part of a lawsuit filed against NuVeda and its affiliates involving two other plaintiffs – Shane Terry and Dotan Melachsoliciting monies owed under a business loan and an equity investment in the business.

This lawsuit has still not been settled. According to court documents obtained by PokerNews, Ivey initially received a 3% equity share in return for a nearly $2 million line of credit he extended to the company. At the time, NuVeda benefited greatly from the money and financial situation of the 10-time WSOP bracelet winner.

“Ivey’s significant commercial experience and financial resources not only provided a solution in support of NuVeda’s commercial strategy, but also provided critical proof of financial viability in support of the competitive application. of Nuveda, including the amount of taxes paid,” the lawsuit states.

The Poker Hall of Famer was originally listed and approved as the owner by the State of Nevada on all six NuVeda licenses.

Equity lost

Phil Ivey

Terry, a co-plaintiff, was promised $1.75 million for his 23% stake in the company, but was only paid around $250,000. Ivey and Terry have since had their shares ripped off by co-owners Pejman Bady and Pouya Mohajer without the written consent of the applicants.

“Shane Terry was supposed to have been paid $1.75 million for his interest, but he only ever received $250,000,” Adam Stein Sapira bankruptcy expert with Pioneer Funding Group, LLC Told PokerNews. “Ivey was supposed to have retained a 3% stake, but that appears to have been completely eliminated. It’s unclear how much Ivey advanced on the $1.9 million line of credit or if it was repaid.”


Free slot machines in the USA

According to court documents, in December 2015, NuVeda’s annual license documents were due to be turned over to the State of Nevada. Meanwhile, Bady allegedly falsely submitted documents to the state removing Ivey’s licensing interest and redistributed them to himself and Mohajer.

As Stein-Sapir said, the amount drawn from the $1.9 million line of credit is unknown, as is the amount that was repaid to Ivey, but the 2022 Super High Roller Series European Champion is waging an ongoing legal battle to retain his 3% stake in the company.

Protect assets

Bady and Mohajer remain the main managers of NuVeda and its subsidiaries, which still have two dispensaries under The sanctuary name – one in northern Las Vegas and one in downtown, and Ivey is supposed to be interested in those stores. However, NuVeda recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which could make recovery even more difficult for Ivey.

phil ivey nuveda

As Stein-Sapir explains, filing for bankruptcy stops litigation in state court and sends the case to a bankruptcy judge.

“Companies take this step to preserve assets and give themselves some leeway to try to reach a deal with creditors, instead of selling the assets at a discount sale or allowing a creditor to sell them. seize and take the title,” said the bankruptcy expert.

Ivey and Terry are listed with two other creditors in the Chapter 11 filing. Bankruptcy documents show NuVeda claims to have less than $50,000 in assets and between $1 million and $10 million in liabilities.

Ivey won two races at the recently completed Super High Roller Series Europe in Cyprus. But his ongoing legal battle against the cannabis company he originally helped fund appears to be a losing battle.

]]>
4th Cir. Cancels Bankruptcy Order for Civil Contempt of Creditor and Declares Taggart Standard to Apply https://purpleribbonproject.com/4th-cir-cancels-bankruptcy-order-for-civil-contempt-of-creditor-and-declares-taggart-standard-to-apply/ Tue, 26 Apr 2022 04:34:57 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/4th-cir-cancels-bankruptcy-order-for-civil-contempt-of-creditor-and-declares-taggart-standard-to-apply/ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that the “without reasonable doubt” standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Taggart vs. Lorenzena case involving an alleged breach of a Chapter 7 release order, governed civil contempt proceedings for breach of a confirmed Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Below Taggart, […]]]>

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that the “without reasonable doubt” standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Taggart vs. Lorenzena case involving an alleged breach of a Chapter 7 release order, governed civil contempt proceedings for breach of a confirmed Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

Below Taggart, 139 S.Ct. 1795 (2019), “civil contempt should not be raised where there is a valid reason to doubt the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct”. the Taggart standard is objective, and “a party’s subjective belief that it was complying with an order will usually not protect it from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable”.

A copy of the notice in Gordon Beckhart, Jr. vs. Newrez, LLC is available on: Link to Reviews.

Two borrowers (“debtors”) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court upheld a plan to reorganize debtors’ debts that included several properties that had large mortgage balances.

Under the confirmation order, the debtors were able to retain possession of one of the mortgaged properties, a North Carolina beach house (“Property”), while the creditor (“Creditor”) retained a security claim for the total outstanding mortgage balance. The confirmation order indicated the date when the first payment was due, but did not specify the payment amount or how the payment would be calculated. The order further provided that debtors were entitled to “ten days’ written notice” before the creditor could “enforce its remedies in the state courts with respect to the security” in the event of debtors’ default.

Several years later, the defendant (“Servicer”) took over the service of the accounts receivable. Servicer believed the account was delinquent due to missed payments prior to bankruptcy proceedings and therefore sent letters and notices of default to debtors that showed increasing amounts due and overdue. The debtors attempted to correct the account without success.

Five years later, Servicer acknowledged that the former servicer “did not adjust the loan in accordance with the confirmed Chapter 11 plan.” However, two weeks later, Servicer began foreclosure proceedings on the property.

After learning of the foreclosure proceedings, the debtors filed an emergency motion for contempt of bankruptcy court, alleging that Servicer breached the confirmation order by placing the account in default and seeking to seize the property despite the fact that debtors have paid on time under the confirmed plan. Servicer argued that (1) its actions were justified under the confirmation order; and alternatively (2) the terms of the order were confused and ambiguous such that it could not be held in contempt.

The bankruptcy court found Servicer in contempt and imposed penalties, finding that “[a] the finding of civil contempt is justified where there is demonstration, by clear and convincing evidence, of “four factors set out in the pre-Taggart decision Ashcraft v Conoco, Inc.218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000).

Servicer appealed and the trial court overturned. The trial court concluded that the Taggart standard applied, and “the contempt order of the bankruptcy court f[ell] away from meeting him “like Servicer” ha[d] established just cause for doubt with respect to the unclear terms of the Confirmation Order.

The debtors appealed to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that Taggart did not apply to breaches of Chapter 11 confirmation orders, and yet the bankruptcy court correctly applied the Taggart Standard.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, believing there was nothing in the Taggart analysis to suggest that it was limited to violation of the Chapter 7 discharge orders nor to show that the decision was based on considerations unique to the Chapter 7 context.

As you may recall, in Taggartthe U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the standard to “hold[ing] a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt which a discharge order “entered under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code ‘immunized from collection’.” 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1799 (2019 ).

By deciding Taggartthe United States Supreme Court first considered the general provisions of the Bankruptcy Code which provide that a discharge order “operates as an injunction”, 11 USC § 524(a)(2), and that a court may “make any order, proceeding, or judgment necessary or proper to enforce the provisions of this title.” § 105(a). See Taggart, 139 S.Ct. to 1801. The Supreme Court found that these general statutory provisions incorporate the “traditional principles of the practice of equity” that have long governed the manner in which courts enforce injunctions”, including “the potent weapon of civil contempt”. Identifier. (quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court pointed out that “[t]Bankruptcy laws… do not grant courts unlimited power to hold a creditor in civil contempt. Identifier.

the Taggart The court ruled that the civil contempt standard “is generally objective” and that such orders are inappropriate “where there is a reasonable ground for doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct”. Identifier. to 1801-02. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]These traditional principles of civil contempt apply directly to the context of discharge from bankruptcy. Identifier. to 1802, 1804.

The Fourth Circuit held that the standard set forth in Taggarta case involving an alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings under Chapter 11. The Court noted that the power of a bankruptcy court to enforce its own orders flowed from the same statutes and general principles invoked by the Supreme Court in Taggart.

In that decision, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the debtors’ argument that the bankruptcy court had applied the Taggart standard to find Servicer in contempt. The written order of the bankruptcy court did not mention Taggart nor its standard of non-just cause for doubt. Instead, the bankruptcy court order stated “[a] the finding of civil contempt is warranted where there is a demonstration…of “the four factors discussed in a case prior to Taggart and had nothing to do with bankruptcy. Thus, the Fourth Circuit could not conclude that the bankruptcy court had applied the correct legal standard.

The Court of Appeals also disagreed with Servicer’s assertion that the trial court did not err in reversing the bankruptcy court’s order. First, the Fourth Circuit found that the trial court erred in appearing to give determinative weight to Servicer’s claim and relying on legal advice from outside counsel, as the Fourth Circuit has long argued that an attorney’s opinion “is no defence” for “civil contempt”. In re Walters868 F.2d 665, 668 (4th Cir. 1989).

The Court of Appeal noted that this had been confirmed in Taggart where the Supreme Court explained that “[t]The absence of will does not dispense with civil contempt. 139 S.Ct. to 1802. Under Taggart“a party’s subjective belief that it was complying with an order does not usually protect it from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable”, but evidence of recourse to the opinion of a counsel may be taken into account in determining whether the party’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the correct remedy was for the bankruptcy court to reconsider the contempt petition on the correct legal standard, including any necessary additional investigation. The Court of Appeal emphasized that any sanction imposed by the lower court must be supported, in kind and amount, by a sufficient evidentiary record.

In summary, the Fourth Circuit held that when a court is considering whether or not to hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a Chapter 11 plan for debt reorganization, Taggart also applies.

Thus, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the bankruptcy court’s order and proceed with the proceeding on the advice of the appeals court.

]]>
High Court ghost file wrongly shortens court process, harming justice: Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren https://purpleribbonproject.com/high-court-ghost-file-wrongly-shortens-court-process-harming-justice-pat-e-morgenstern-clarren/ Sun, 24 Apr 2022 09:29:00 +0000 https://purpleribbonproject.com/high-court-ghost-file-wrongly-shortens-court-process-harming-justice-pat-e-morgenstern-clarren/ SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio — Our Constitution only works when those who serve in all three branches of government act openly and in good faith for the public good. This applies as much to the Supreme Court of the United States as it does to Congress and the executive branch. And yet, the Supreme Court of […]]]>

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio — Our Constitution only works when those who serve in all three branches of government act openly and in good faith for the public good. This applies as much to the Supreme Court of the United States as it does to Congress and the executive branch. And yet, the Supreme Court of the United States in recent years has repeatedly violated this principle by its inappropriate decision use of the so-called “virtual folder” adjudicating cases involving critical issues such as the death penalty, access to abortion, elections, travel bans, military service for transgender people and the environment.

The Supreme Court generally makes its decisions in two ways: either by following its usual rules or by applying a rule governing emergency situations. It is the increasing use of emergency procedures that has led to these decisions being referred to as a “ghost file”; in other words, cases decided outside the bright light of agreed standards.

Emergency procedures, logically enough, can only legitimately be used in an emergency. While each of us may have our own definition of urgency, Supreme Court rulings over the decades have established that urgency only exists when a party who has lost in a lower court proves that they will suffer irreparable harm – harm that cannot be repaired later – unless the Supreme Court intervenes immediately to circumvent normal procedures.

Compare this with the long-established procedure for deciding cases that affect the nation, and it is evident what is lost by the use of the shadow case.

As a general rule, any party attempting to overturn a trial court decision must await the decision of all lower courts and then ask the Supreme Court to reconsider. If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, it goes through an open process that includes a briefing, a chance for other interested groups to join in the discussion and oral argument, and time for the justices deliberate on issues both individually before arguments and collectively after disputes. The pleading, a particularly important part, allows the parties to engage in a direct discussion with the judges on the merits of the case, the only time when such a dialogue is authorized.

Having been involved in oral argument, both as a circuit court attorney and as a trial judge adjudicating, I can attest to the value of these formal conversations.

All of that gets pushed aside when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a ghost case. A glance the most recent use of this device and the harm it causes to the system shows the problem. A trial court, after notice and a hearing, struck down a US Environmental Protection Agency rule. The losing parties appealed to a circuit court. While the case was pending in this court, the losing parties bypassed the circuit court and asked the Supreme Court to use its emergency powers to suspend (i.e. stop) the decision of the trial court until the circuit court and possibly the Supreme Court have decided the case. . The High Court did so in a one-paragraph opinion which sets out neither the facts nor the law nor its legal reasoning.

Regular procedures are sometimes criticized for taking too long, and sometimes this criticism is justified. But the desire to win faster does not mean irreparable harm. When the United States Supreme Court steps away from its role as an impartial arbiter of last resort and inserts itself into lower court proceedings intended to clarify issues before the case reaches the Supreme Court, it distorts the process and the legal system.

As a retired federal trial judge, it pains me to make these comments about an institution created by the Constitution and for which I have the greatest respect. But respect for an institution does not mean losing the right to demand that those who have the privilege of being appointed to the Supreme Court act in the public interest.

The current use of the Shadow Record by the United States Supreme Court is disrespectful to lower courts, attorneys and their clients, the public, and the rule of law. They should stop using the emergency roll as an excuse to prematurely grab a case to overturn a decision they don’t like.

Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren served as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland from 1995 until his retirement in 2017, including two terms as Chief Judge and one on the bankruptcy appeal panel of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Do you have anything to say on this subject?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

*Send general questions, comments or corrections about this opinion column to Elizabeth Sullivan, Director of Opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.

]]>