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"
Getting paid as a bankruptcy professional can often be a tightrope walk. Transparency is extremely important when you receive payment from the estate, especially because you need to submit your application for payment to the court. In most cases, it becomes public record for everyone to review and scrutinize.
What is an interested party? Consider these everyday scenarios: An unsupervised child encounters a take-one-piece-only Halloween bucket; a teacher administers a your-bonus-rides-on-these-results test; or a football team pays a doctor to conduct in-game concussion evaluations. These conflicts raise concerns about the ability of the conflicted party to be fair and impartial.
Corporate governance battles spill into bankruptcy courts and at times serve as the genesis for bankruptcy petition filings. For example, recently the Fifth Circuit in In re Franchise Services of North America Inc. addressed a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition on the basis that under the state law governing the would-be corporate debtor, the petition filing was unauthorized and invalid.[1] This article discusses the Bankruptcy Code, federalism, corporate law and public policy.
Throughout 2017 and continuing into 2018, the Young and New Members Committee (the “Y&NM Committee”) leadership produced a variety of helpful materials and programs, and continued to encourage new and young ABI members to become more active in the organization. Just some of those highlights are discussed below.
Like their for-profit counterparts, nonprofit corporations face a variety of challenges throughout their corporate life cycles, some of which may lead an organization to pursue reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1] One of the issues that arises during a nonprofit’s reorganization is whether its board of directors must continue to act pursuant to their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and obedience under state law or must maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for its creditors.[2]
The Bernie Madoff investment scandal unleashed a slew of lawsuits, and at first glance, SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG[1] may seem like just another drop in the bucket. However, this case is notable for its expression of the Second Circuit’s rather extraordinary view of “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction. This article reviews the case and analyzes the court’s ruling.
[1]Fee applications are an inescapable aspect of bankruptcy practice. As “estate professionals,”[2] attorneys and other professionals employed by debtors in possession, must file fee applications and obtain court approval of their fees.[3]
