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"
For years, the law regarding the impact of a bankruptcy petition on the rights of a property tax purchaser in Illinois was unclear. A recent Seventh Circuit Decision, In re LaMont,[1] provides clarity on the issue and might be a valuable tool for commercial property owners in chapter 11 cases to unravel a property tax sale after the redemption period has expired.
Editor’s Note: The following article, “Render unto Caesar the Venue Choice that Is Caesar’s: Venue Transfer and the 'Interest of Justice' Standard Examined in In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Co.,” won the prize for third place in the Seventh Annual ABI Bankruptcy Law Student Writing Competition. The author, Michael Sullivan, is a recent graduate of University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, GA.
Since chapter 12 is modeled after chapter 13, plus the relative paucity of chapter 12 case law, there is a considerable degree of cross-pollination whereby chapter 13 case law is used to resolve chapter 12 issues.[1] Ordinarily, this is fine. Despite their similarities, however, chapter 12 is unique in certain respects.
In recent months, bankruptcy courts and nonbankruptcy courts have addressed the enforceability of make-whole premiums (“make-wholes”) where borrowers have sought to repay loans prior to maturity, including In re Energy Future Holdings, Inc., et al. (EFH) pending before Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and the Second Circuit’s ruling in Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., issued in November 2014, which was a nonbankruptcy appeal from the Southern District of New York.
The last major revision to U.S. business reorganization laws occurred in 1978. In the nearly four decades since then, the markets and financial products, as well as the industry itself, have evolved. Accordingly, ABI established the Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 to evaluate the U.S.
Most bankruptcy attorneys are born negotiators. It is part of our DNA to zealously advocate for our client’s position and simultaneously explore options for consensual resolution. Unfortunately, many bankruptcy disputes cannot be resolved this way. Perhaps the client has unrealistic expectations, or perhaps there is a personality conflict between the lawyers and their clients. Or possibly the lawyer, the client or both view settlement dialog as a sign of weakness. Or the dispute is so complex that the parties are unable to figure out how to even begin discussing a compromise.
Following a nearly-three-year study, on Dec. 8, 2014, the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 published a 400-page report containing recommendation and principles for policymakers. This article focuses on chapter 11 reform relating to professional retention and compensation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion on Jan. 21, 2015,[1] holding that a UCC-3 termination statement was effective to extinguish a security interest of up to as much as $1.5 billion, notwithstanding that the secured lender erroneously authorized the filing of the termination statement and did not intend to extinguish the security interest.
The Business Reorganization Committee held a free committee wide call on Tuesday, September 23rd, at 4 pm ET. The topic was titled "Looking at International Insolvency/Restructurings Through the Bankruptcy Code and Beyond," and featured key speakers, including: Patrick Mohan (Moderator) of Reorg Research (Columbia, S.C.), Rachel Ehrlich Albanese of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York).
