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"
This session hosted by the Bankruptcy Litigation and Young and New Member Committees will focus on the limits of avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees in Ponzi scheme cases, including arguments about the expansion of the look-back period to 10 years, trustee standing, clawbacks from noninvestor sources, in pari delicto and how trustees decide whom to sue.
This panel will explore the nuts and bolts of bankruptcy appeals, taking into account the needs of one’s clients, examining the do’s and don’ts for an effective appeal, discussing the differences of appealing to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel versus electing to proceed before the district court, the limits of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, and addressing strategies for a successful appeal.
This panel will explore the nuts and bolts of bankruptcy appeals, taking into account the needs of one’s clients, examining the do’s and don’ts for an effective appeal, discussing the differences of appealing to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel versus electing to proceed before the district court, the limits of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, and addressing strategies for a successful appeal.
This article addresses the requirements for vacating a judgment or order as void under Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including a review of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United Student Aid Funds Inc. v. Espinosa, as it pertains to Rule 60(b)(4).
I sometimes joke that “bankruptcy litigator” is an oxymoron because bankruptcy and litigation practice often seem fundamentally at odds. Bankruptcy is, first and foremost, an equitable process, designed to be flexible and pragmatic in practice, which works best when it is consensual.
Before litigating an adversary proceeding or contested matter against a state or its agencies, plaintiffs would be wise to consider whether the state entity has a colorable sovereign immunity defense.[1] In In re La Paloma Generating Co.,[2] Delaware Chief Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S.
In enacting § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,[1] Congress waived the government’s ability to assert the defense of sovereign immunity with respect to a variety of Bankruptcy Code provisions.[2] Section 106(a) specifically authorizes the court to “issue against a governmental unit an order, process, or judgment under such sections or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including an order or judgment awarding a money recovery, but not including an award of punitive da
A Delaware Bankruptcy Court has held that litigants pursuing post-confirmation state law fraud claims against the trustees of a mass-tort litigation trust must first seek leave from the bankruptcy court that established the trust. In Smith v.
