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"
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.
During one week in May, two appellate decisions came out of the district court of the Southern District of New York relating to mootness of appeals of confirmation orders. While the results of the two cases were opposite, the rationale was consistent.
Rarely is an official rule of court publicly acknowledged as a license for a “fishing expedition,” but that is the characterization often conferred by the courts on Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004. E.g.,In re French, 145 B.R. 991, 992 (Bankr. D. S.D. 1992).
Over the past year, courts have begun addressing issues raised by revised 28 U.S.C. §158(d) (§158(d)), and the Interim Bankruptcy Rules (8001 and 8003) adopted to implement them. Section 158(d) provides, under certain circumstances, for direct appeals from the bankruptcy courts to the circuit courts of appeal.
In Industrial Clearinghouse Inc. v. Mims (In re Coastal Plains Inc.), 338 B.R. 703 (N.D. Texas 2006), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas took the majority view of 28 U.S.C. §1452, holding that when that section refers to removal to a “district court,” it includes bankruptcy courts in that group.
The Second and Third Circuits recently issued opinions that support the enforceability of otherwise valid arbitration clauses in core bankruptcy matters. The opinions also highlight a circuit split regarding the appropriate legal standard to be used to determine whether bankruptcy courts have discretion to refuse to enforce arbitration clauses in core matters.
