Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This installment of our appellate practice series reviews recent cases addressing the equitable mootness doctrine. The issue ultimately often turns on whether it is practical and fair for an appellate court to review an appeal on the merits, enabling that court to avoid review altogether. Academics have failed to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court on petitions for certiorari that sophisticated parties have abused the system by relying on the doctrine. See, e.g., In re One2One Communications, LLC, 805 F.3d 428, 448-49 (3d Cir. 2015) (Krause, J., concurring); In re Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC, 958 F.3d 949, 950 (10th Cir. 2020), citing Bruce A. Markell, “The Need of the Many: Equitable Mootness’ Pernicious Effects,” 93 Am. Bank. L. 377, 396-413 (2019).
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Landmines In Bankruptcy Appellate Practice, Part III
By Michael L. Cook
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers’ errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
A Strategic Guide for Lenders to Navigate Anticipated Distressed Loan Fallout
By Jay Steinman and Karina Leiter
The steps outlined in this article offer a strategic guide for lenders, empowering them to navigate the complexities of loan workouts and enforcement actions with resilience and foresight.
Third Circuit: Bankruptcy Code Mandates Appointment of Examiner In Chapter 11 Cases
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
The Third Circuit recently held in 'In re FTX Trading' that the plain text of Section 1104(c)(2) mandates the appointment of an examiner under the specified conditions set forth. As a result, the FTX decision will carry significant implications for large and medium-sized bankruptcy cases.
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Ryan Spengler
The Central District of California court held that a bankruptcy court’s administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor’s estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.