Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employment of Matrimonial Counsel for the Benefit of The Bankruptcy Estate
An application to employ matrimonial counsel and use estate funds will be granted where it is for the benefit of the estate. In re Goldstein, Bk. No. LA 07-11878 SB, Chapter 11, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, June 29, 2007, decided, July 2, 2007, entered.
The husband and wife filed jointly for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and applied for authorization to employ their respective matrimonial attorneys to perform legal services in relation to their matrimonial dissolution proceeding. After a hearing, the court granted both motions to authorize employment of the divorce counsel under ' 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. It held that under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), any property obtained by the debtor during the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceeding is the property of the bankruptcy estate, and the individual debtors are not permitted to use their post-petition income to pay divorce counsel or other expenses without the authorization of the court. Here, the court granted the parties' application, holding that ' 327(e) authorizes the appointment of specialized counsel for a specific purpose if it is in the best interest of the estate and the counsel does not hold any interest adverse to the debtor with respect to the matter for which the counsel is to be employed.
Employment of Matrimonial Counsel for the Benefit of The Bankruptcy Estate
An application to employ matrimonial counsel and use estate funds will be granted where it is for the benefit of the estate. In re Goldstein, Bk. No. LA 07-11878 SB, Chapter 11, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, June 29, 2007, decided, July 2, 2007, entered.
The husband and wife filed jointly for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and applied for authorization to employ their respective matrimonial attorneys to perform legal services in relation to their matrimonial dissolution proceeding. After a hearing, the court granted both motions to authorize employment of the divorce counsel under ' 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. It held that under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), any property obtained by the debtor during the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceeding is the property of the bankruptcy estate, and the individual debtors are not permitted to use their post-petition income to pay divorce counsel or other expenses without the authorization of the court. Here, the court granted the parties' application, holding that ' 327(e) authorizes the appointment of specialized counsel for a specific purpose if it is in the best interest of the estate and the counsel does not hold any interest adverse to the debtor with respect to the matter for which the counsel is to be employed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.