Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Foreign Representatives in Chapter 15 petitions are specifically permitted to conduct discovery to locate the debtor’s assets within the United States to increase estate and creditor recoveries in the overseas proceedings and to probe the debtor’s affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities. In the U.S. ancillary proceeding, the Foreign Representative will encounter resistance and other entities may seek to propound subpoenas under Fed. R. Bankr. 2004. Sometimes, these entities are creditors who seek information relevant to their claim or assets available to pay the same. Other times, these entities are subpoena targets who seek to gain a peek into the Foreign Representative’s search, seek to distract and/or delay the Foreign Representative from the asset search, or who seek to “punish” the Foreign Representative. The Foreign Representative may be able to avoid responding to such requests by moving for protective order or to quash the subpoena based upon 11 U.S.C. 1521(a)(4) and/or Rule 2004(a). The arguments are based upon: 1) the language of 1521(a)(4) and two canons of statutory construction, or, alternatively; 2) interpretive case law under Rule 2004 as to the requirements to show a “pecuniary interest” in a case.
*May exclude premium content
By Tinamarie Feil
We all have experienced technology’s dramatic effect on bankruptcy practice, particularly in the electronic filing of documents and in the electronic communication and sharing of information among parties.
By Michael L. Cook
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code’s enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
By Alfred S. Lurey
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee’s bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
By Theresa A. Driscoll
The Supreme Court concluded that because the 2017 amendments exempted debtors located in two States, it was not “uniform” as it did not apply equally to all debtors regardless of where they were situated and, therefore, the statute was unconstitutional.