In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

O BANCO ESPÍRITO SANTO, S.A. – EM LIQUIDAÇÃO anunciou que o prazo para a apresentação das reclamações de créditos no âmbito do seu processo de liquidação terminará no dia 11 de dezembro de 2017.

O termo do prazo para apresentação de reclamações de crédito é estabelecido em função da última citação de credor no estrangeiro, contando-se 60 dias a partir dessa data. De acordo com o referido comunicado, a mais recente citação conhecida foi efetuada no dia 11 de outubro.

BANCO ESPÍRITO SANTO, S.A. – EM LIQUIDAÇÃO has announced that the time limit for the lodgement of claims under its liquidation proceedings ends on 11 December 2017.

The time limit for lodging claims is set with reference to the last service of notice to a creditor abroad and the 60-day period counted from said date. According to the aforementioned announcement, the last known notice was served on 11 October.

The announcement reserves the possibility of extending the time limit in the event of subsequent services.

On November 9, responding to a request from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief at the Court recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-11911, be granted. The petition, seeking review of a unanimous panel decision of the Eleventh Circuit, presents the question of “whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a ‘statement respecting the debtor's . . .