Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Appellate Courts Split On Bankruptcy Ownership of Malpractice Claims
The debtors' legal malpractice claim was "not property of their bankruptcy estate," held a split Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2020. In re Glaser, 816 Fed. Appx. 103, 104 (9th Cir. June 30, 2020) (2-1). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota one week later affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment that "the [debtor's] estate was the proper owner" of such a claim. In re Bruess, 2020 WL3642324, 1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020). Most recently, the Sixth Circuit held that the debtors' malpractice claim was their property "and not the bankruptcy estate." In re Blasingame, 2021 WL 245300, 1 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021).
All three courts relied on state law in their decisions, purportedly consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Rodriguez v. FDIC, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 713 (Feb. 25, 2020) (state law determines a "fight over [ownership of] a tax refund."). As shown below, however, federal law should have governed ownership of the claims in all three cases, making them available to creditors as assets of the bankruptcy estate. Judicial hair-splitting, when applying state law to federal bankruptcy cases, creates only uncertainty, but Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution mandates "uniform" bankruptcy law.
Relevance
The ownership of malpractice claims is significant in business cases. If the claims are part of the debtor's estate, creditors share in any recovery. When the claims are excluded from the estate, though, creditors receive nothing. As the Sixth Circuit noted in Blasingame, "[t]here is little agreement both inter- and intra-circuit, on how courts should deal … with a claim for legal malpractice against the filing attorneys …." Blasingame, 2021 WL 245300, at 5.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?