Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is one thing to hold a claim. It is another to obtain a judgment. And as we all know, obtaining a judgment does not assure actual recovery on the claim. Once a plaintiff obtains a judgment, it can pursue execution proceedings to encumber, seize, and liquidate a defendant’s property to satisfy the judgment amount. Often the defendant’s conduct raises concerns that assets that would otherwise be available to satisfy the judgement will be transferred or hidden — often beyond the jurisdiction of a court — to frustrate collection of the judgment. That being said, the well-established general rule is a plaintiff cannot attach or seize the defendant’s assets prior to obtaining a judgment. So, are there exceptions to the general rule against prejudgment attachment that may allow a plaintiff to obtain injunctive relief against a defendant freezing the defendant’s assets prior to the outcome of the litigation? This issue was recently considered by Judge Craig T. Goldblatt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Miller v. Mott (In re Team Systems International), Adv. No. 23-5004-CTG (Case No. 22-10066 (CTG)) (Jan. 31, 2023). In that case, after reviewing an unusual factual background replete with issues regarding document “redactions” and other irregularities, the court issued a preliminary injunction freezing the defendants’ assets pending the conclusion of the fraudulent transfer litigation.
*May exclude premium content
Lease Terminations As Fraudulent Transfers
By Michael L. Cook
Is an insolvent debtor’s pre-bankruptcy termination of a commercial lease a fraudulent transfer? The circuit courts seem to be split, however a close reading of cases in the Third and Seventh Circuits shows that the reasoning of both courts can be reconciled on their facts.
The Role of Third-Party Releases In Successful Chapter 11 Reorganizations
By John J. Rapisardi and Jacob T. Beiswenger
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
In Part Two, we continue the analysis by evaluating two constitutional issues arising from third-party releases: whether creditor consent to be bound by a third-party release is required to satisfy the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and whether bankruptcy courts have constitutional authority to issue final orders granting third-party releases in a plan of reorganization under Stern v. Marshall.
Fourth Circuit: Corporate Subchapter V Debtors Subject to Discharge Exceptions Under Bankruptcy Code
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Elisa Hyder
In a matter of first impression not yet addressed by any circuit court, the Fourth Circuit addressed whether the discharge exceptions under Section 523(a) apply to corporate debtors under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Appellate Court Reverses Chapter 11 Confirmation Order Based on Faulty Tax Ruling
By Michael L. Cook
The Northern District of California recently issued two blistering opinions on appeals by the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board from a bankruptcy court’s Chapter 11 plan confirmation order and a tax determination order.