Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Change of name

Choice of law

Introduction

On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit^[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.

On 29 May 2014, the Moldovan Parliament passed the Act No. 90/2014 on amending and supplementing of certain legislative acts (Act No. 90). Act No.90, which entered into force on 27 June 2014, implements simplified rules on the liquidation of companies in Moldova (in particular, at the decision of their shareholders), namely by inter alia amending the Civil Code of Moldova, Act No. 845/1992 on Entrepreneurship and Enterprises, Act No. 220/2007 on State Registration of Companies and Individual Entrepreneurs.

On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals¹ vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.² The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.

Introduction
Procedural background
Facts
Statute of limitations
Actual fraudulent conveyance
Settlement
Comment

Introduction
Accepted defensive framework
Novelty with regard to time limitation
Other remedies

Introduction

Introduction
Background
Third Circuit's majority opinion
Dissent
Analysis
Successor claims as property of the estate