Case Name and Number: Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357

Introduction: In an 8-0 opinion issued today, the Supreme Court held that a creditor’s passive retention of property properly seized from a debtor pre-bankruptcy does not violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

In the recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the "Act"), Congress provided much-needed cover for landlords that enter into forbearance agreements with their tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic by protecting landlords from exposure to preference litigation arising out of the deferred rent payments if the tenant were to later file bankruptcy.

What is a preference?

While many California homeowners have heard of the homestead exemption, few understand how this powerful tool can be used to ensure that homeowners stay in their homes, despite creditors, judgments, and even bankruptcies. Below, the experienced California bankruptcy attorneys at Talkov Law provide the tips and tricks to maximize your California homestead exemption.

This post originally appeared on the Council of Fashion Designers of America website, CFDA.com.

The question whether a counter claim filed against a Corporate Debtor is liable to be stayed during moratorium has been considered by the Courts/NCLT/NCLAT time and again. Since its inception, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) has been a hotbed of discussions and debates amongst the legal experts. Under the Code, the concept of moratorium is envisaged under Section 13 and 14 and provides for a time period within which the following against the Corporate Debtor are prohibited:

The SBA’s Rules Exclude Bankruptcy Debtors from Relief Under the Paycheck Protection Program

The oil and gas industry in Texas is currently facing a double whammy from the recent oil price shock and COVID-19 related demand reductions. While exploration and production operators in Texas are proactively taking self-help measures to reinforce their financial frameworks — reducing capital spending, operating expenses, overhead and dividends — the outlook remains highly uncertain.

In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.

Introduction

Recent Developments