On March 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt another setback to plaintiffs trying to establish Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). In five related FCRA appeals combined in Jaras v. Equifax, Inc., 2019 WL 1373198 (9th Cir. Mar.

Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).

In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed

The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.

Can a profit-sharing provision in a commercial lease survive assumption and assignment by a debtor? Analyzing such a provision, the Third Circuit answered “no,” finding the provision to constitute an unenforceable anti-assignment provision. Haggen Holdings, LLC v. Antone Corp, 739 Fed. Appx. 153 (2018).

Legal and Factual Background

Equitable mootness is a judicially created doctrine often applied in appeals from orders of bankruptcy courts confirming chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In instances where granting relief on appeal would result in overturning the confirmation order and therefore unravelling a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan, appellate courts have, in certain circumstances, abstained from deciding appeals in reliance on equitable mootness.

自己破産というのは、借金を返すことがもう絶対にできないということを裁判所に理解してもらい、法律上で、借金をなくしてもらうことができるやり方です。生活する中で、最低限必要な財産以外のものは、何もかも失うことになります。 日本の国民であるならば、誰もが自己破産ができるのです。

本来、債務は自分で返済すべきですが、どうにも返済の見込みが立たないときには、債務整理を考えてみるべきです。 一般的に債務整理が必要かどうか判断するタイミングというのは、毎月の返済が収入の３割以上に及ぶ場合が妥当な時期のようです。任意整理で弁護士等を訪れるのはこのタイミングが一番多いです。予定していた日に返済が行われないと、貸した側から次の日には支払いに関しての連絡がくるでしょう。

次の支払い予定日を聞かれるのでそこで約束すれば、あとでしつこく電話がかかってくることもありません。

しかし、もしその期日に約束を果たさないと、また催促の連絡がきて、やがて訴訟に発展する可能性もあります。

どうあがいても返済不能な状態に陥ったら、任意整理、個人再生、自己破産といった債務手続きをするという手があります。

どういった形で債務者が借金を整理するかによって債務整理には４つの方法があります。

Whether liquidated damages (LDs) can be claimed after termination is a question which comes up regularly. It is very relevant in the current climate where contracts are often terminated following contractor insolvency. If I were devising a construction law exam paper, this classic question would undoubtedly appear.

After Energy Future Holdings (EFH), maybe not so much. The size of the break-up fee approved by the bankruptcy court in EFH was undoubtedly large by any account – US$275 million. But it was approved following all necessary filings, notice and hearings. All parties and counsel involved were highly sophisticated and experienced. The court that approved the fee was the Delaware bankruptcy court, by all accounts one of the most experienced and sophisticated bankruptcy courts in the nation. And there wasn’t even a hint of fraud, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts.

Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.