LJN Newsletters

Last month, we discussed "The Debtor's Nightmare," explaining how the Fourth Circuit joined the Ninth, Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the "hypothetical test" in denying a debtor in possession's assumption of an executory contract under section 365 (c) of the Bankruptcy Code despite an express assignability provision in the contract. RCI Tech. v. Sunterra Corp. (In re Sunterra Corp), 361 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2004). This month, we continue with "the debtor's paradox."

Senator John Cornyn of Texas introduced the "Fairness in Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005" (S. 314) on Feb. 8, calling it the "end to judge shopping ..." According to the Senator, "[F]orum shopping is wrong. It distorts and corrupts our justice system." Bankruptcy Reform: Hearing on S. 256 and S. 314 Before Sen. Judiciary Comm., 2005 Legis. (Feb. 10, 2005). There may be merit to Sen. Cornyn's bill, but not in his rhetoric, driven, as the facts show, by a desire to increase his home state's market share in the competition for big bankruptcy reorganizations.

There are many sections of the new Bankruptcy Act that address various tax issues; some of the most important and relevant corporate changes are explored in this article.

Under ' 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (the so-called "stockbroker defense" to select voidance actions), Congress has exempted from avoidance any "settlement payment" that is made "by or to a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, or securities clearing agency, that is made before the commencement of the case," except where the transfer is fraudulent under ' 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. ' 546(e). So what exactly is a "settlement payment"? Prior to the BAP decision in In re Grafton Partners, the answer to this question was surprisingly unclear.

This Special Issue focuses on all-important custody issues every family law attorney should know.

Custody matters are addressed to the court, either as an initial Petition regarding custody, or as a Petition to Modify an existing custody order. Custody petitions may be brought by a parent, and under certain circumstances by a grandparent or by a third party. "It is axiomatic that in custody disputes, 'the fundamental issue is the best interest of the child.'" Charles v. Stehlik, 560 Pa. 334, 339, 744 A.2d 1255, 1258 (2000), quoting Ellerbe v. Hooks, 490 Pa. 363, 416 A.2d 512, 513 (1980). "Custody cases are unique in that they involve disputes between two people (generally parents) regarding the upbringing of their children. There is little applicability of substantive law from other fields into custody cases. Custody law and analysis will not be applied in situations other than those regarding children." DeSanctis v. Pritchard, 803 A.2d 230, (Pa. Super. 2002) (custody of a dog).

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

On June 30, 2004 an Involuntary Petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed against NorVergence, Inc., the New Jersey telecommunications company. While this filing represented the likely end of a telecommunications company which, at its zenith, employed 1500 people, with more than 11,000 equipment leases in effect worth some $200 million, it also marked the beginning of litigation arising out of those leases now being waged in various state and federal courts across the country involving thousands of lessees, scores of finance companies and dozens of governmental agencies.