The Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy trustee to avoid (i.e., obtain the return of) certain types of prepetition property transfers so that the bankrupt estate can be divided among creditors fairly. For example, a trustee may bring actions to set aside transfers made within a specified period before the bankruptcy (preferences) and transfers made deliberately to defraud creditors (fraudulent transfers).
Association assessment collection is every day business for Florida community associations. Often times, the unit owner will file bankruptcy to avoid this legal obligations. The law governing condominium and homeowners association assessments with regard to bankruptcy actions is found at 11 USC § 523 (a)(16). This law which generally states that assessments are not dischargeable.
Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on bankruptcy jurisdiction in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (S.Ct.), are enough to strike fear into the heart of any bankruptcy buff. What emerges from the transcript of the oral arguments is, in a word, confusion. This bodes ill for an early resolution of the upheaval created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), limiting the power of bankruptcy judges to decide certain matters that arise in bankruptcy proceedings.
In its opinion in LTF Real Estate Company, INc. v. Expert South Tulsa, LLC (In re Expert South Tulsa), 2014 WL 6845675 (10thCir.
Today’s blog article, which looks at the treatment of specific oil and gas property interests in the bankruptcy context, is the second in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog series, “Drilling Down,” where we review issues at the intersection of the oil and gas industry and bankruptcy law.
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the bankruptcy court dismissed a chapter 11 case for bad faith, relying in part on an email sent by someone other than the debtor relaying to his employees and sales representatives his conversation with the debtor’s chief executive officer. This decision serves as a reminder to debtor lawyers how imperative it is to review with your client what it is saying both privately and publicly about its bankruptcy case. Because even in bankruptcy court, anything you say can and will be used against you.
“The past can’t hurt you anymore, not unless you let it.” – Alan Moore, V for Vendetta
Baker Botts L.L.P. et al. v. ASARCO L.L.C., currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, is of particular interest to bankruptcy practitioners because this decision will have far-reaching effects regarding attorney’s fees in bankruptcy. Specifically, the Supreme Court will determine whether Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code grants bankruptcy judges the discretion to award compensation for the defense of fee applications.
In a recent decision by the Second Circuit, Lucas v. Dynegy Inc. (In re Dynegy, Inc.), No. 13-2581 (2d. Cir. Oct.