Bankruptcy plaintiffs seeking to avoid and recover preferential transfers sometimes sue the wrong party and further fail to detect the error within the two-year limitations period set by the Bankruptcy Code. Errors of that kind are common and probably inevitable in large bankruptcy cases, in which the trustee or the debtor-in-possession or successor thereof per a confirmed plan (e.g., liquidation trustee or litigation trustee) files hundreds or even thousands of avoidance complaints on the eve of the expiration of the limitations period. The plaintiff may seek to rectify such an error by amending its original complaint to name a new defendant in replacement of or addition to the original defendant. Where the limitations period has elapsed prior to the amendment of the complaint naming the new defendant, the plaintiff may likely face dismissal of the amended complaint against the new defendant unless plaintiff can establish that the addition of the new defendant 'relates back' to the date on which the original complaint was filed.

Amendment of a complaint to add a party, and relation back of the amended complaint to the date of the original complaint are governed by Rule 7015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides that Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. This live audio conference reviews in detail Rule 15 requirements for amending complaints so that the naming of new defendants relate back to the timely-filed original complaint, in light of the Supreme Court's clarification of certain Rule 15 rules in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S.Ct. 2485 (2010) and its progeny.

• Of counsel in the Chicago office of Lowis & Gellen LLP
• Practice emphasizes all aspects of chapter 11 practice, plus loan workouts on behalf of financial institutions; co-managed large preference caseload on behalf of liquidating trustee in the In re Plastech Engineered Products, Inc. cases; represented debtors in the Wickes Inc., Goldman Group, Inc., and Harnischfeger, Inc. cases
• Writer of “Commodity Supply Agreements Are Swap Agreements: A Counter-Intuitive But Quite Real Safe Harbor From Preference Avoidance” 8 Int’l. Corp. Rescue 268-77 (2011)
• Member of State Bar of Illinois and State Bar of Ohio (inactive); admitted to practice before the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Michigan
• J.D. degree, University of Michigan Law School
• Can be contacted at 312-628-7193 or ccahill@lowis-gellen.com

• CBC
• CLE (Please check the "Detailed Credit Information" page for states that have already been approved)
• NALA
• Additional credit may be available upon request. Contact Lorman at 866-352-9540 for further information.