In In re Nilsson, 129 Nev. Adv. 101 (December 26, 2013), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:

If all goes as planned, the Uniform Law Commission will finalize and promulgate a model act dealing with the appointment and powers of commercial real estate receivers at some point in 2015.  Last month, the Drafting Committee for this model act met in Minneapolis, MN to discuss and revise the latest draft.

a) Continuità diretta e indiretta

Nella precedente esperienza applicativa del concordato, la conservazione dei complessi aziendali in esercizio assai di rado avveniva in capo allo stesso imprenditore, quanto piuttosto solo in via “indiretta”, attraverso la formale cessione ad un soggetto terzo, procedendo, prima del deposito della domanda di ammissione al concordato, alla concessione in affitto al fine di preservarne l'operatività.

The procedure of composition with creditors aimed at business continuity (“concordato preventivo con continuità aziendale”, provided by art. 186-bis of the Bankruptcy Law) has a major impact on the rules governing public contracts, above all with reference to the requirements requested both for the participation of economic operators in the public tender procedures and for their capacity to enter into agreements with public entities.

Under Arizona law, does a secured creditor need to file a deficiency action within 90 days after a trustee’s sale to preserve the unsecured portion of its claim in a bankruptcy case? Or is filing (or amending) a proof of claim sufficient? Two recent cases out of Arizona provide conflicting answers.

On May 18, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., et al., CV-11-0115-PR, holding that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to show the original promissory note for the trustee to notice and conclude a non-judicial trustee’s sale.