Features

The Barton Doctrine: Suit Against Receiver Did Not Require Court Permission
The Fifth Circuit recently addressed a new fact pattern and issue concerning the Barton doctrine: whether a receiver appointed in a state court action could be sued in a subsequent bankruptcy case of the debtor absent court permission.
Features

District Court Affirms Bankruptcy Court Conversion of Subchapter V Case to Chapter 7
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York converting a debtor’s Subchapter V case to a Chapter 7 case. In particular, the district court found that the bankruptcy court’s decision to convert was not an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the serious conflicts of interest that existed between the debtor and the potential target of significant fraudulent transfer claims held by the debtor’s estate.
Features

Chapter 11 Not Safe Harbor for Debtor to Delay Creditors, Bankruptcy Court Rules
A ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge in New York denying attorney’s fees to a debtor’s counsel sends a startling reminder to attorneys and clients alike. The Chapter 11 process is not intended to be a safe harbor for a debtor solely to delay creditors or circumvent other legal proceedings.
Features

Court Allows Nonconsensual Releases of Third-Party Claims to Be Included In Settlement Agreement
The bankruptcy bar and courts are attempting to determine the breadth and depth of the Purdue ruling both as to what constitutes consent under a plan of reorganization and whether Purdue applies to other bankruptcy proceedings, including a sale of assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, free and clear of claims, and approval of settlements. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently faced these issues.
Features

Bankruptcy Experts Debate Intersection of Mass Torts and Bankruptcy
Perhaps the debate over whether multidistrict litigation or bankruptcy is a better vehicle to resolve mass torts need not be binary. Bankruptcy experts recently discussed the increasingly busy intersection of mass torts and bankruptcy as part of a discussion sponsored by the UC Berkeley School of Law ’s Civil Justice Research Initiative.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith 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.Read More ›
- 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.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe 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.Read More ›
- Voice of the Client: Hearing the Client Through the NoiseAt the end of the day, a lot of noise is created in the effort to hear the voice of the client. We propose that while these efficiencies and innovations in law are valuable, the clients keep asking for something different: a lawyer who deeply understands their business and their specific issue — at the time they need it.Read More ›