A widely held assumption in bankruptcy cases and other litigation is that fraudulent intent cannot be established on a summary judgment motion but may only be found after a full trial on the merits. Judges in fraudulent conveyance cases are not accustomed to deciding intent, solvency or constructive fraudulent conveyances on summary judgment evidence and may simply assume that if a case is not settled, it will be tried.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York recently decided in In re R.F. Cunningham & Co. Inc., 355 B.R. 408 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2006), in the context of a motion to lift the automatic stay, that a statutory lien under Ohio law was susceptible to being avoided as a secret lien under §544(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Champaign Landmark, an Ohio vendor, was owed approximately $150,000 for grain picked up by the New York debtor.
A number of recent decisions on whether to seal confidential commercial information under §107 of the Bankruptcy Code set a high bar for keeping information confidential.
On March 5, 2007, in Motorola Inc. v.
The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective Dec.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently entered an opinion in Quintus Corp. v. Avaya Inc. (In re Quintus), No. 04-53074, 2006 WL 3072982 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct.
In order for a trustee or debtor-in-possession (DIP) to recover a fraudulent transfer pursuant to §548 of the Bankruptcy Code (absent an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors), one key element that must be established is that the debtor was either insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, or bec
With commercial bankruptcy filings presently at an all-time low and a steady decrease in filings occurring each year going back to 2003, it has become a much longer and drawn-out process to resolve a bankruptcy preference action.
A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia highlights the importance of counseling clients about their duties as debtors and clarifying for them what they can and cannot do with property of the estate, even after the discharge is entered. In Jordan v.