July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
In bankruptcy cases, it is common for appellate courts to decline to review orders confirming substantially consummated chapter 11 plans because of the “equitable mootness” doctrine—a judge-created abstention rule intended to protect both the finality of reorganization and the expectations of third parties. Recently, however, the U.S.
Hon. Robert E. Gerber recently issued two decisions related to voting on the debtor’s plan in In re DBSD North America Inc., case number 09-13061 (REG) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that have broader implications for plan confirmation in bankruptcy cases.
Whether informal committees must comply with the disclosures mandated by Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is a very hot litigation topic and the subject of no fewer than six decisions in the last three years.
At the dawn of the recent financial upheaval, an article in this newsletter called attention to an extraordinary hearing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada.
Editor's Note: The following article, "The Trouble of the $1,000 Billable Hour in Bankruptcy - Limitations of Professional Compensation by the Bankruptcy Court under 11 U.S.C. §328," won the prize for third place in the First Annual ABI Bankruptcy Law Student Writing Competition.
This country has recently been inundated with tales of investment fraud. On July 13, 2009, Marc Dreier was sentenced to 20 years for a conviction arising from securities fraud. On June 30, 2009, Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for his involvement in a Ponzi scheme that cost investors billions. Sir Paul Allen Stanford was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) for fraud and multiple securities law violations on Feb. 17, 2009.
Deadlines may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties to act and they produce finality. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638 (1992)
It is well settled that bankruptcy courts, as courts of equity, have the power in many circumstances to reconsider previous orders. Some of these “motions for reconsideration” are made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §502(j), which states, “[a] claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause” on the grounds of mistake of law or fact.
