Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
<b><I>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</I></b><p>Last month, we began our discussion of what constitutes a good-faith defense to a fraudulent transfer claim with an initial examination of the recent Sixth Circuit opinion in <I>Meoli v. Huntington Nat'l Bank</I>. We continue the analysis this month by focusing on sub-issues presented in <I>Meoli</I>, and, we discuss a recent Ninth Circuit preference decision that offers a mistaken analysis of the transfer issue.
Features
Often, asset protection advice is bereft of any discussion of California exemption statutes — which often provide the most efficient and safest asset protection. But to properly protect an asset in California, it's generally best to understand and maximize exemptions.
Features
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling carries with it implications that may affect both pending and future bankruptcy proceedings.
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</i></b>The issue of what constitutes a good-faith defense to a fraudulent transfer claim is a murky question that has produced a wide variety of reported decisions from appellate courts over the years. But a recent Sixth Circuit opinion sheds some clear light on a complicated fact pattern.
Features
The past year has brought a wave of restaurant businesses filing for reorganization in Chapter 11. With inherently low profit margins, increased competition, limited pricing flexibility and a propensity for expansion without the support of underlying business fundamentals, the industry is particularly susceptible to business failure.
Features
In <I>Jevic</I>, the members of SCOTUS — sans Neil Gorsuch, who had not yet been confirmed — declined the invitation to "upend" the absolute priority scheme. The question presented: "Can a bankruptcy court approve a structured dismissal that provides for distributions that do not follow ordinary priority rules without the affected creditors' consent?" SCOTUS's answer: a resounding "No." Would Gorsuch have changed that?
Features
Secured creditors and debtor-in-possession (DIP) lenders that rely on standard carve-out provisions to limit the impact of bankruptcy professional fees on their collateral would be well-advised to take notice of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision from earlier this year.
Features
A Chapter 11 debtor "cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure," held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Features
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in <i>Blixseth v. Brown</i> that under <i>Barton v. Barbour</i>, a plaintiff must obtain a bankruptcy court's permission before commencing a lawsuit in another forum against a member of the committee of unsecured creditors, and that <i>Stern v. Marshall</i> does not preclude bankruptcy courts from adjudicating such claims on the merits.
Features
<b><i>Uncertain Treatment of Make-Whole Premiums Upon Bankruptcy-Induced Acceleration and Redemption of Indentures</b></i><p>Make-whole premiums are essentially prepayment penalties imposed on borrowers when loans are paid off in advance of their maturity dates. These premiums remove the borrowers' incentives to refinance whenever interest rates drop, and provide stability and predictability to the world of secured lending.