In 2006, the Colorado Legislature passed HB 06-1387, which produced significant changes to Colorado’s foreclosure laws. Although the majority of the changes were to take effect July 1, 2007, the 2007 Legislature passed HB 07-1157, which made additional changes and pushed back the effective date for many of the 2006 modifications to January 1, 2008. This alert summarizes the most significant changes that will affect both lenders and borrowers and provides a revised timeline for the foreclosure process after January 1, 2008.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES 

Happy 2018! We at The Bankruptcy Cave have been itching to write about the Cherry Growers Chapter 11 case - which really is ground-breaking - but the holidays, life, and yes, work for clients too, all just got in the way. But with each passing week, the case stayed on our minds. So now that time permits, here is the writeup - and see below for the remarkable significance of the case.

Two recent cases analyzed the misrepresentations of a debtor regarding a single asset and held a written misrepresented value of a single scheduled estate asset would result in nondischargeability under Section 727, and that a verbal misrepresentation of a pre-petition asset to a creditor did not result in an exception to discharge under Section 523.

The English High Court in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) [2016] EWHC 2417 (Ch), in one of a series of cases arising from the Lehman insolvency, has had to consider (among other issues) the meaning of “Default Rate” under the ISDA Master Agreement.

Editor’s Note: While we at The Bankruptcy Cave always enjoy writing about new cases or legal developments, we really love using our posts as an opportunity to pass along tips, easily forgotten rules, and things that make the client think you are a rock star (and avoid a client’s distrust in your ability to captain the Chapter 11 ship).

1 PGDOCS\6505199.2 2015 Georgia Corporation and Business Organization Case Law Developments Michael P. Carey Bryan Cave LLP Fourteenth Floor 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 572-6600 March 22, 2016 This paper is not intended as legal advice for any specific person or circumstance, but rather a general treatment of the topics discussed. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author only and not Bryan Cave LLP. The author would like to thank Tom Richey for his continued support, advice and assistance with this paper.

An opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Motors Liquidation Company, relying on the Delaware Supreme Court’s answer to a certified question highlight the need to focus on the details w

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

Directors and officers of Delaware corporations face no liability to corporate creditors from direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty, under the Delaware Supreme Court’s recent ruling in North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, (May 18, 2007) (“North American Catholic”).

Arthur C. Clarke famously observed: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Our regulatory, legislative, and judicial systems illustrate this principle whenever new technology exceeds the limits of our existing legal framework and collective legal imagination. Cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin, has proven particularly “magical” in the existing framework of bankruptcy law, which has not yet determined quite what bitcoin is—a currency, an intangible asset, a commodity contract, or something else entirely.