Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While the number of bankruptcy cases has been trending down over the past year, and we have seen some positive economic activity, there are also predictions that long-term negative impacts could result in an increasing number of corporate restructurings and bankruptcy filings.
A common source of recovery for creditors in bankruptcy cases are litigation claims brought by a bankruptcy estate to claw back what is known in the bankruptcy world as "preferential" and "fraudulent" transfers. "Valuation," "solvency" and "insolvency" are commonly used terms in litigation stemming from bankruptcy cases involving these claims. This article focuses on the basics of fraudulent transfer claims and solvency analysis in the context of lawsuits where a plaintiff is seeking to recover payments made prior to the bankruptcy case being commenced, sometimes referred to as "claw back" litigation.
In connection with such litigation, plaintiffs are often required to prove that the debtor was insolvent at the time the transfer was made. Insolvency is an important element of a plaintiff's case, as it goes to the avoidability of transactions as either "preferential" or "fraudulent" (fraudulent in this context refers to circumstances where the recipient did not provide the debtor with reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.