Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Issue-Specific Withdrawal of the Reference
Traditionally, defendants in actions brought by debtors or trustees have struggled to level the playing field and extricate themselves from the bankruptcy court, a forum often perceived as the plaintiff's “home court.” At one time, litigants hoped to utilize motions to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 157(d), to enhance their prospects of a favorable resolution from a presumably friendlier judicial forum. However, more often than not, movants were disappointed by the district courts' natural reluctance to relieve the bankruptcy courts of their intended role and increase their own considerable workloads.
The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Stern v. Marshall has revitalized this litigation tactic and encouraged a veritable torrent of such motions. In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (Madoff) alone, a liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act currently pending before the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, literally hundreds of such motions have been filed in the fraudulent transfer actions commenced by the trustee. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has issued several orders withdrawing the reference, not with respect to the adversary proceedings in their entirety, and not even with respect to individual claims, but with respect to discrete issues underlying those claims (including the effect of Stern v. Marshall on the bankruptcy court's ability to hear and adjudicate avoidance claims).
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.