Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 200 L.Ed.2d 218 (U.S. 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court laid out the standard of review for appellate courts to apply when reviewing a bankruptcy court’s determination of a “mixed question” of law and fact. No doubt the decision provides valuable guidance for the lower courts and practitioners, but resolution of this technical procedural issue has garnered little excitement: as one commentator put it, the majority opinion authored by Justice Kagan represents “the smallest change in the law of any opinion the Supreme Court hand[ed] down this year.” Ronald Mann, Opinion Analysis: Justices Approve Deferential Review of Bankruptcy-Court Determinations on “Insider” Status, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 5, 2018, 4:34 PM).
*May exclude premium content
By Louis F. Solimine, James J. Henderson and Andrew L. Turscak, Jr.
In a recent, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final order that must be appealed within the time provided under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa, Jr. and Geoffrey A. Heaton
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia recently denied creditors’ counsel’s motion for a fee enhancement under the “common fund doctrine,” finding it could not award the requested fees absent statutory authority.
By Lawrence J. Kotler
In the case of In re Solutions Liquidation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adjudicated a motion to dismiss filed by the debtors’ former managers and officers in connection with the breach of fiduciary duty complaint filed against them by the trustee of the debtors’ liquidating trust.
By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.
The provisions of the Bankruptcy Code sometimes conflict with other federal laws and regulations. The Sixth Circuit Court recently considered whether an energy company debtor could reject a power purchase agreement as an executory contract that had been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)