The Indiana Court of Appeals recently interpreted an ambiguous subordination agreement, finding the subordinated creditor was entitled to the appointment of a receiver over the mortgaged property. PNC Bank, National Association v. LA Develop., Inc., --- N.E.2d ---, No. 41A01-107-MF-314, 2012 WL 3156539 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code exempts payments for electricity provided under a requirements contract from avoidance as preferences. At least where the facts match those of the subject case, MBS Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. MXEnergy Elect., Inc., No. 11-30553, 2012 WL 3125167 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012), such payments are exempt.
Perfection of security interests in intellectual property can be a trap for the unwary. In general, secured parties are often confused about where to file in order to perfect a security interest. This is not surprising as the perfection regime differs depending on the type of intellectual property. As a starting point, one should determine the general rule for the main classes of intellectual property: trademarks, patents and copyrights.
In a perfect world, a debtor's bankruptcy would involve timely reporting, good faith filings, and full disclosures. Unfortunately, some debtors either enter the process under a cloud of suspicion or make decisions during the process that suggest the estate has been compromised by fraudulent activity. Whether the alleged fraud is a complex bust-out scheme or a simple unreported asset transfer, the debtor may face a serious investigation. Depending on the extent of the allegations, the investigation could be referred as a criminal matter to federal prosecutors. As the
In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.
In a decision of considerable importance for bankruptcy debtors and lenders, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling earlier today in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, --- S.Ct. ----, 2012 WL 1912197 (2012). In this highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held that a debtor may not confirm a plan under the “cramdown” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A) where the plan proposes to sell a secured lender’s collateral without affording the creditor the opportunity to credit-bid for the collateral.
A Ministry of Justice Report released in March 2012 has confirmed that the implementation of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the "Act") is to be delayed until 2013.
If you are one of the lucky product manufacturers who weathered the recent economic downturn well and are looking to buy assets from those who did not survive…beware!
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently held that under Ohio law, the homestead exemption set forth in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.66 applies to contiguous parcels of land only if those parcels are used for a single purpose as the debtor’s homestead. In re Whitney, 459 B.R. 72 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011).