David Y. Wolnerman

David Y. Wolnerman

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Bankruptcy Attorney in New York, NY

White & Wolnerman, PLLC
 | 950 Third Ave, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-308-0603
Fax: 212-308-7090
Selected To Super Lawyers: 2014 - 2019
Licensed Since: 2002
Education: Brooklyn Law School
Practice Areas:
  • Bankruptcy: Business (50%),
  • Business Litigation (40%),
  • Business/Corporate (10%)
Attorney Profile

David has extensive experience as a bankruptcy, restructuring and creditors’ and debtors’ rights attorney.  He has represented and advised clients, both in and out of court, on a broad range of distressed situations, reorganizations, restructurings, workouts, liquidations, distressed acquisitions and sales, and litigations, including many large, high profile cases of local and national importance.

David regularly represents creditors, debtors, lenders, investors, landlords and other parties in all aspects of corporate restructurings, commercial litigation, alternative dispute resolution, negotiation, risk analysis, and asset protection strategies.  David’s varied experience, ranging from small and mid-size business transactions to multi-jurisdictional, complex transactions for public corporations, provides clients with a unique combination of seasoned business and legal experience.

Prior to forming White & Wolnerman, David practiced in the Business Finance, Restructuring and Bankruptcy groups at the law firms of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

About David Wolnerman

Admitted: 2002, New York

Professional Webpage: http://www.wwlawgroup.com/attorneys/david-y-wolnerman/

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • New York City Bar Association
  • American Bankruptcy Institute

Scholarly Lectures/Writings:

  • Panelist, Hot Topics in Bankruptcy: Credit Bidding, Facutly Guest Speaker, Hot Topics in Bankruptcy, ABA, Bankruptcy - Financial Institutions, 2013
  • Co-author, Closing Out Derivative Transactions:  Risk Mitigation and Close Out Netting, Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Implications of Close-Out Netting (Practicing Law Institute, 2009)., Co-Author, Closing Out Derivative Transactions: Risk Mitigation and Close Out Netting, Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Implications of Close-Out Netting, PLI, Financial Institutions/Derivatives, 2009
  • Co-author, Turmoil in the Health Care Industry - What about the Patients?, Americas Restructuring and Insolvency Guide, 2008 edition., Co-Author, Turmoil in the Health Care Industry - What about the Patients?, Americas Restructuring and Insolvency Guide, Bankruptcy - Health Care, 2008
  • Panelist, Healthcare Industry Restructurings: How the 2005 Bankruptcy Code Amendments Change the Rules, The American Bar Association Health Law Section and The ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education teleconference, Panelist, Healthcare Industry Restructurings: How the 2005 Bankruptcy Code Amendments Change the Rules, American Bar Association Health Law Section and The ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education , Bankruptcy - Health Care, 2008
  • Co-author, Law Firm Partnership Agreements, Chapter 9, Law Firm Bankruptcies (Law Journal Seminars - Press, 2005)., Co-Author, Law Firm Partnership Agreements, Chapter 9, Law Firm Bankruptcies , Law Journal Seminars - Press, Professional Partnerships, 2005
  • Harvey R.  Miller, et al., Impact of Debtor in Possession Financing and Adequate Protection on Corporate Governance and Chapter 11 Case Direction and the Use of Cash Collateral as an Alternative; New York University School of Law, Twenty-Ninth Annual Lawrence O. King & Charles Seligson Workshop on Bankruptcy and business Reorganization (September 2003)., Co-Author, Impact of Debtor in Possession Financing and Adequate Protection on Corporate Governance and Chapter 11 Case Direction and the Use of Cash Collateral as an Alternative, Twenty-Ninth Annual Lawrence O. King & Charles Seligson Workshop on Bankruptcy and business Reorganization , Bankruptcy - Financial Institutions, 2003

Verdicts/Settlements:

  • Kimmel v. Schon et al., Case No. 15633/12, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Written opinion issued denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the context of foreclosure action related to $250 million Ponzi scheme.
  • In re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 434 B.R. 131 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2010) - Race tracks moved to compel Chapter 9 debtor, a public benefit corporation established under New York Racing Law to operate off-track, pari-mutuel betting system, to immediately pay indirect commissions for which it was statutorily obligated to tracks.Holdings:  The Bankruptcy Court, Martin Glenn, J., held that:(1) bankruptcy court's authority to decide dispute was limited by terms of debtor's consent;(2) commissions were not immediately payable as administrative expenses, as “actual and necessary cost of preserving the estate”;(3) debtor would not be unjustly enriched if it were not required to promptly pay these indirect commissions to tracks by bankruptcy court; and(4) court would exercise its discretion to permissively abstain from hearing state law questions presented.  

Representative Clients:

  • Representation of Pre-Petition Debenture Holders and Tranche B DIP Lenders in chapter 11 bankruptcy of Global Capacity Group, Inc
  • Representation of Step One Credit Agreement Lenders in Tribune Company chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings
  • Representation of Jennifer Convertibles, Inc. in its chapter 11 case
  • Representation of owner and operator of Monticello Raceway in connection with its recovery of statutory commissions in the chapter 9 bankruptcy case of New York's largest off-track betting company
  • Representation of Clarus Corp. in connection with its merger with Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd
  • Representation of Barclays Bank as Administrative Agent for pre-and post-petition lenders in bankruptcy of LandSource Communities Development
  • Representation of Colony Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. in bankruptcy of Colony Beach & Tennis Club Association, Inc
  • Representation of Nomura Bank in connection with Lehman and Madoff bankruptcies
  • Representation of Allied Capital as pre-petition lender to chapter 11 debtor The Creative Group, Inc.
  • Representation of Best-Metropolitan Towel & Linen Supply Co., Inc. in its chapter 11 proceeding
  • Representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the chapter 11 proceedings of The 1031 Tax Group, Inc
  • Representation of chapter 11 trustee in connection with bankruptcy of Solomon Dwek-related entities
  • Representation of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the chapter 11 proceedings of Avianca Airlines
  • Representation of Bank of Baroda as pre-petition lender to chapter 11 debtor Indu Craft, Inc
  • Representation of Platinum Group, et al. in connection with Refco bankruptcy
  • Representation of landlord Jamestown Chelsea Market, LP in bankruptcy of Goupil Patisserie, Inc
  • Representation of landlord RCPI Landmark Properties, L.L.C. in bankruptcy of Fifth Avenue Restaurant Acquisition Corp
  • Representation of Corporate Recovery Group, LLC as potential acquirer of Hawaiian Airlines
  • Representation of potential acquirer of St. Vincent’s Hospital property
  • Representation of equity owner in the Venture Industries Chapter 11 case
  • Representation of Devcon Security Services Corp. in connection with the acquisition of Adelphia Security Business and related litigation
  • Representation of Enron Corp. in its chapter 11 cases
  • Representation of APW, Ltd. In connection with its pre-packaged chapter 11 cases
  • Representation of Formica Corp. in its chapter 11 cases
  • Representation of Toronto Dominion (Texas) Inc. as administrative agent for Safety-Kleen’s pre-and post-petition lenders.

Newsletters:

  • This Newsletter discusses the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in In re Fitness Holdings Intern., Inc., 714 F3d 1141 (9th Cir 2013), which held that bankruptcy courts may re-characterize debt as equity where state law treats such debt as an equity investment.  In departing from well-established Ninth Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that bankruptcy courts may not create their own rules for the allowance of claims based upon state law., A Debt by Any Other Name - Re-Characterizing Debt as Equity, Bankruptcy - Financial Institutions
  •   This Newsletter discusses the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts's (Feeney, J.) opinion hodling that the assignment of voting rights contained in a subordination agreement is unenforceable in a bankruptcy case, although other provisions of subordination agreements are generally enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC, 460 B.R. 38 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011). , Junior Lenders Rejoice: Court Refuses to Enforce Assignment of Voting Rights Contained in Subordination Agreement, Bankruptcy - Financial Institutions
  • This Article discusses the "new value" defense to preference actions. As demonstrated by Responsible Person of Musicland Holding Corp. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. (In re Musicland Holding Corp.), 2011 WL 6880675 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011), the "new value" exception, can be particularly nuanced and potentially very valuable to avoidance defendants. , Musicland v. Best Buy: Anatomy of the New Value Defense, Bankruptcy
  •   In Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. v. Burtis, (In re Pitt Penn Holding Co., Inc.), 2012 WL 204095 (Bankr. Del. January 24, 2012), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Shannon, J.) held that the two-year look back period for fraudulent transfers is not a statute of limitations and, therefore, may not be tolled notwithstanding that defendant may have prevented the debtor from discovery the transfer. , To Toll or Not to Toll: Bankruptcy Court Confirms That § 548 Two-Year Look-Back Period May Not be Extended, Bankruptcy
  •   In construing the Bankruptcy Rules to permit the filing of class proofs of claim, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Gentry v. Siegel (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), 2012 WL 310870 (4th Cir. February 2, 2012), joined the vast majority of other courts that have considered the issue. As the Fourth Circuit made abundantly clear, however, the ability to file proofs of claim on behalf of putative class members is conditional and subject to further bankruptcy court approval. , Fourth Circuit Update: Filing Proofs of Claims on Behalf of Putative Class Members, Bankruptcy - Class Actions
  •   This Newsletter discusses a case of first impression, Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC), 2012 WL 204088 (Bankr. D. Del. January 24, 2012), in which the bankruptcy court for the District of Delaware held that (i) QSub status is property of the debtor’s estate; (ii) post-petition revocation of a parent corporation’s S-Corp. status that automatically terminates the subsidiary’s QSub status is an avoidable transfer under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (iii) such revocation is a violation of the automatic stay imposed by section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. , Revoking S-Corp. Status of a Non-Debtor Parent: A Cautionary Tale, Bankruptcy - Tax
  •   This Newsletter discusses the Seventh Circuit decision, In re River East Plaza, LLC, 2012 WL 169760 (7th Cir. January 19, 2012) which demonstrates the potentially devastating consequences of making the wrong decision regarding section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code under a debtor’s proposed plan. , The Single Asset Real Estate Dilemma – A Hobson’s Choice, Bankruptcy - Real Estate
  •   Over 25 years ago, the Seventh Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., (In re Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.), 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985) permitted a debtor-licensor to reject an intellectual property licensing agreement, but provided that the licensee could only seek monetary damages as a result of the debtor’s breach resulting from rejection – the licensee could not, however, retain its rights to use the intellectual property under the agreement and could not demand specific performance. In response to the Lubrizol decision, Congress added Section 365(n) to the Bankruptcy Code to allow a licensee of intellectual property to retain its rights under the license, despite rejection of the underlying license agreement, provided that the licensee continues to perform under the license. Until recently, no court of appeals has agreed or disagreed with Lubrizol. This Newsletter discusses Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 2012 WL 2687939 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012), in which the Seventh Circuit finally overruled Lubrizol and revisited the effects of rejection under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy as well as the scope of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code., Sunbeam Me Up Scotty: Seventh Circuit Goes Where No Circuit Court Has Gone Before, Bankruptcy - Intellectual Property
  •   In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III tribunal, lacked constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim. Notwithstanding the Stern Court’s characterization of its holding as "narrow" and not intended to change the bankruptcy landscape, the opinion has caused lower courts to reexamine whether bankruptcy courts have the constitutional authority to hear and decide statutorily codified "core" matters. Almost two years to the day of the Stern decision, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2012), a decision that is in direct conflict with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012). This Newsletter addresses two issues that have engendered substantial disagreement in the aftermath of Stern , There and Back Again: An Unexpected Journey Through Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction , Bankruptcy
  •   This Newsletter discusses the decision in In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., 12-11873 (SMB), 2013 WL 2663193 (Bankr S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013), which provides insight on the divisible/non-divisible distinction for the purposes of assumption and rejection under Bankruptcy Code § 365., Having Your Cake and Eating it Too: Assume, Reject or Both?, Bankruptcy - Retail/Wholesale
  • This Newsletter discusses the Second Circuit decision in Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 2013 WL 3064848 (2nd Cir. June 20, 2013), which demonstrates that a trustee’s ability to act on behalf of creditors is prescribed by the Bankruptcy Code and common law principles, regardless of the size of the harm or the benefits that could ensue to the creditor body. The Second Circuit also found that these basic prescriptions are unaltered by the fact that the trustee was appointed pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act and not in the context of a chapter 7 or chapter 11 proceeding. Finally, this decision, while generally less thanhelpful to the small investor without the resources to pursue litigation against major financial institutions, empowers creditors seeking to recover from non-debtor third parties who might otherwise be accused of interfering with the bankruptcy estate., If the Shoe Doesn't Fit: How Far a Trustee May Proceed on Behalf of a Fraudster Debtor, Bankruptcy
  •   This Newsletter discusses In re JJMM International Corp., No. 11-76540 (AST) (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012), in which the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of New York provided insight on how to draw the distinction between "single asset" and "hybrid asset" cases where the debtor owns more than one parcel of property. , The Arithmetic of Bankruptcy: Defining the Single Asset Real Estate Case, Bankruptcy - Real Estate
  •   This Newsletter discusses In re VeraSun Energy Corp., No. 08-12606 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. March 26, 2012), in which the bankruptcy court for the District of Delaware held that section 502(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to claims under a change in control agreement and caps such claims so they do not exceed one year’s future compensation under the agreement plus any unpaid compensation due under the agreement. , It’s a Long Way Down – Best Check Your Golden Parachute Before Jumping, Bankruptcy
  •   This Newsletter discusses RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank., 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), in which the United States Supreme Court clarified that a debtor may not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a lender’s lien, but does not permit the lender to credit bid at the sale. , Indubitable Equivalents and a Lender's Right to Credit Bid, Bankruptcy
  • This Newsletter discusses the First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. et al. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund that may have far-reaching implications on private equity funds that own portfolio companies with underfunded pension obligations.  In an issue of first impression in the First Circuit, the court held that a private equity fund that actively managed a portfolio company could be considered a “trade or business” with joint and several liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Action of 1980 (“MPPAA”), for that portfolio company’s multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability, assuming the additional “common control” factor is satisfied., Investors Beware: The Distinction Between Managing One's Investments in Businesses and Managing the Businesses in Which One Invests, Bankruptcy - Private Equity

Industry Groups

  • Entertainment
  • Financial Institutions
  • Hospitaility
  • Professional Partnerships
  • Real Estate
  • Retail
  • Wholesale
Show More
Office Location for David Y. Wolnerman

950 Third Ave
11th Floor
New York, NY 10022

David Y. Wolnerman:

Last Updated: 4/4/2019

Page Generated: 0.37925601005554 sec