Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.
Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines a case where an individual’s knowledge of a tax evasion scheme was key
A cellphone company director lost his bid to challenge a £1.7 million-plus award against him for VAT fraud when the High Court said he had actual knowledge of his firm's tax evasion scheme.
In Bhatia v Purkiss [2023] EWHC 775, the High Court rejected an appeal from Deepak Bhatia, the company director of the now-defunct phone company JD Group Ltd, against a ruling from the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC).
How is the function of a company’s separate personality altered by insolvency? And to what extent may that give rise to an action in civil fraud? Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines the situation.
Since the end of the 19th century and the decision in Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, it has been settled law that a company has its own separate personality. But as company law and insolvency law have evolved, the function of the company’s separate legal personality has developed.
For some reason, there is a fascination out there (not sure where, exactly) with having every assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) supervised by a court from the get-go.
This fascination suggests that every ABC effort requires court action and judicial approvals, from the beginning and throughout the assignment, to assure that everything about the ABC and its administration is on the up-and-up.
Startling and Puzzling
This fascination is both startling and puzzling. Here are some reasons why.
After more than a decade, litigation resulting from the failed leveraged buyout (LBO) of media giant Tribune Company has finally drawn to a close. On Feb. 22, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the latest decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 10 F.4th 147 (2d Cir.
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period April - June 2021.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
As COVID-19 related economic disruptions place unprecedented stress on cash flows, the risk of insolvency is a new and growing concern for many businesses. Against the backdrop of a decades-long growth in corporate debt, boards of directors are making decisions that have the potential for pitting the interests of creditors against the interests of equity shareholders.
With businesses focused on the impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on current and future liquidity, balance sheet and cash flow concerns, and an expected decline in the level and profitability of business activity in these difficult and uncertain times, in many cases attention has turned to the issue of the duties and responsibilities of directors to creditors when a corporation is financially troubled and is either approaching insolvency (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) or becomes insolvent.
Un deber fiduciario es una obligación de índole legal consistente en velar por los intereses y actuar en beneficio de otra persona.
Indenture trustees and agents participate in the administration of chapter 11 cases in a number of ways, including by protecting holders’ rights, ensuring compliance with the applicable indenture and other agreements, and fulfilling their duties and responsibilities under applicable law.