Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    Supreme Court declares bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction to decide counterclaims based on state common law unconstitutional
    2011-07-07

    The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Stern v. Marshall1 that a bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to render a final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s counterclaim against a creditor based on state common law, despite an express statutory grant of jurisdiction. This ruling is the most significant decision regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction since the Court’s 1982 decision in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon2 and it could significantly affect the administration of bankruptcy cases.

    Root of the Constitutional Problem

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Media & Entertainment, Troutman Pepper, Bankruptcy, Tortious interference, Defamation, Standard of review, Constitutionality, Common law, Subject-matter jurisdiction, Title 11 of the US Code, US Constitution, Article III US Constitution, US Congress, SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Michael H. Reed
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Troutman Pepper
    Re Game Station - the Court of Appeal has overturned the law on administrators paying rent
    2014-02-27

    Key points

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Gowling WLG, Common law, Court of Appeal of England & Wales
    Authors:
    Martin Thomas
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Gowling WLG
    Valid statutory demand
    2010-11-23

    The court has held that a statutory demand is valid despite the high default interest rate on an underlying loan.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Gowling WLG, Bankruptcy, Credit (finance), Surety, Debtor, Interest, Debt, Collective bargaining, Common law, Default (finance)
    Authors:
    Ian Weatherall , Greg Standing
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Gowling WLG
    Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “Actual Fraud” Exception to Bankruptcy Discharge
    2016-05-23

    On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Cole Schotz PC, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Debt, Common law, Bankruptcy discharge, SCOTUS
    Authors:
    Mark Tsukerman
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Cole Schotz PC
    Priorities outside the Alberta Personal Property Security Act (PPSA)
    2014-03-17
    1.  INTRODUCTION

    S4 of the PPSA, provides that "except as otherwise provided" in the PPSA, the PPSA does not apply to a number of enumerated liens, charges or other interests, including as set out in s4(a) "a lien, charge or other interest given by an Act or rule of law in force in Alberta".

    Filed under:
    Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, DLA Piper, Solicitor, Personal property, Common law, Personal Property Security Act 1990 (Canada)
    Location:
    Canada
    Firm:
    DLA Piper
    Remotely terminating equipment use as enforcement remedy against default: understanding the legal requirements
    2013-04-15

    In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.

    Filed under:
    Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, DLA Piper, Debtor, Accounts receivable, Common law, Default (finance)
    Authors:
    M. Sandra Appel
    Location:
    Canada
    Firm:
    DLA Piper
    District Court upholds future claimants’ due process rights against broad releases in Section 363 sale order
    2012-04-05

    The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") on March 29, 2012 held that a bankruptcy court sale order issued under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code ("Section 363") could not extinguish state law successor liability personal injury claims brought against the purchaser by third parties injured after the close of the bankruptcy case, but whose injuries arose out of conduct of the debtor prior to its bankruptcy. Morgan Olson LLC v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Industries, Inc.), 2012 WL 1038672 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Common law, Title 11 of the US Code, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Lawrence V. Gelber , Neil S. Begley
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
    U.S. Supreme Court dramatically curtails bankruptcy courts' powers
    2011-09-07

    The United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the authority of bankruptcy courts, with potential far-reaching implications on past, present and future bankruptcy matters. The case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), began as a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and the son of her late husband. After several years of litigation and one previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled bankruptcy courts lack the authority to enter judgments on counterclaims against a debtor that are based on state law.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Fox Rothschild LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Constitutionality, Common law, Pro rata, US Constitution, Article III US Constitution, US Congress, SCOTUS, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Brett A. Axelrod
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
    Tuning to a common law frequency
    2014-07-31

    It is common practice to find directors of a company standing surety for the company in order to secure its debts. The consequence could be severe for the sureties, because if the company is unable to pay its debt, the creditor can take legal action against the directors or other third parties in their capacity as sureties, unless the company pays its debts and the sureties are released from liability.

    Filed under:
    South Africa, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Hogan Lovells, Surety, Debt, Common law
    Authors:
    Alex Eliott
    Location:
    South Africa
    Firm:
    Hogan Lovells
    Anti-deprivation: still worth worrying about?
    2011-11-15

    The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

    Filed under:
    United Kingdom, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Dentons, Contractual term, Collateral (finance), Landlord, Interest, Swap (finance), Good faith, Common law, Default (finance), Credit default swap, Lehman Brothers, SCOTUS, UK Supreme Court
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Firm:
    Dentons

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 15
    • Page 16
    • Page 17
    • Page 18
    • Page 19
    • Current page 20
    • Page 21
    • Page 22
    • Page 23
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days