Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A Tension Between §§363(f) and 365(h) How do bankruptcy judges resolve the competing desires of buyers and tenants? Must buyers bid for property knowing that tenants might have the right to stay if their leases are rejected? Are tenants in jeopardy that they might have to move elsewhere to live or work?
Features
The Office of U.S. Trustee is known among practitioners as the "watchdog" of the bankruptcy process. To fund the U.S. Trustee, Chapter 11 debtors must pay quarterly fees. Following a recent substantial increase to the U.S. Trustee fee schedule, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found the amended fee schedule to be unconstitutional because it was being applied nonuniformly to Chapter 11 debtors around the country.
Features
Lessors who repossess property immediately prior to a lessee bankruptcy filing may be required to return such property or face sanctions by the bankruptcy court. Federal courts are currently split on the issue of whether the lessor must voluntary surrender property seized pre-petition or may hold such property until the debtor obtains an order of turnover.
Features
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."
Features
With increasing frequency, Chapter 7 trustees are looking to insolvent parents as well as colleges and universities to avoid and recover for estate creditors payments made by insolvent debtors for the benefit of the debtors' dependents. These cases are premised on the theory that the tuition payments being made by insolvent parents for the benefit of their children are avoidable as constructively fraudulent transfers because the parents do not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payment of such tuition. Courts are divided as to whether the payment of a child's tuition provides reasonably equivalent value to the insolvent parents.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in <i>Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology </i>, ruling that a trademark licensee can retain its rights under a trademark license agreement that is rejected by the licensor as an executory contract in bankruptcy.
Features
In its recent opinion in <i>Taggart v. Lorenzen,</i> the Supreme Court decided that “[a] court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct.” Although this standard appears to be new, it is more than a century old and “brings the old soil” from civil contempt with it.
Features
A bankruptcy court decision recently detailed how courts applying Bankruptcy Code §303(i) can sanction creditors who "abuse … the power given to [them] … to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition." The decision shows why the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy requires careful pre-filing legal judgment.
Features
<i>Courts Are Divided on the Issue of Whether the Fraudulent Transfer Recovery Provision Applies Extraterritorially</i><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued an opinion concluding that trustees can pursue recovery from foreign subsequent transferees who received property in transactions that occurred entirely outside the United States. The opinion reversed two lower court rulings and arguably conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on extraterritoriality of U.S. legislation.
Features
When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.