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).
By Michael L. Cook
“A … transferee [who] received fraudulent transfers with actual knowledge or inquiry notice of fraud or insolvency” loses any “good faith” defense available under the Texas version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), held the Fifth Circuit in Janvey v. GMAG, LLC
By Matthew Gold
It has been nearly two years since the Supreme Court upended the world of the Bankruptcy Code securities safe harbor with its decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.. For all of the speculation regarding its consequences, there have been few subsequent lower court decisions applying Merit Management, however those cases provide valuable guidance to practitioners facing safe harbor litigation as well as transactional lawyers looking to take advantage of safe harbor protections.
By Albena Petrakov
With the recent carnage in the retail industry, a lot of attention goes to the fate of landlords when their tenants seek bankruptcy protection. A recent case that brings balance is Revel AC Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk, LLC.
By Paul A. Rubin and Hanh V. Huynh
Employees of a troubled company who stay on as consultants to assist in liquidating its assets or preparing the company for a bankruptcy filing may later be disappointed to face claims to claw back their prepetition compensation.