Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: 523(a) Discharge Exceptions Don't Apply to Corporate Debtors Under Subchapter V
In the case of Lafferty v. Off-Spec Solutions (In re Off-Spec Solutions), 651 B.R. 862 (9th B.A.P. 2023), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the discharge exceptions under Section 523(a) do not apply to corporate debtors under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. In so holding, the Lafferty court disagreed with the decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the only circuit court to address this issue in the case of Cantwell-Cleary v. Cleary Packaging (In re Cleary Packaging), 36 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2022).
Background
In this case, the debtor, Off-Spec Solutions LLC filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho and elected to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 as a small business enterprise. During the case, a former employee filed a complaint against the debtor, seeking a declaration from the bankruptcy court that her claims against the debtor for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination were nondischargeable under Sections 1192(2) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In support of her complaint, the former employee cited the Fourth Circuit's decision in Cleary. In that case, the Fourth Circuit held that, pursuant to Section 1192(2), the discharge exceptions set forth in Section 523(a) apply to all Subchapter V debtors. Section 1192(2) provides, in relevant part, that, "if a plan of the debtor is confirmed under Section 1191(b) … the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts … except any debt … of the kind specified in Section 523(a)."
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.