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
    Actions based on same course of conduct are related claims; application of I v. I exclusion unclear where claims brought by trustee on behalf of debtor and subsidiaries
    2011-09-19

    The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos

    Filed under:
    USA, Delaware, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Wiley Rein LLP, Bankruptcy, Costs in English law, Debtor, Board of directors, Liquidation, Subsidiary, Causality, Westlaw, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 (RICO) (USA), Trustee, Delaware Supreme Court, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for District of Delaware
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Wiley Rein LLP
    Not all bankruptcy “core” proceedings are created equal: a limitation on state law lender liability claims in bankruptcy court after Stern v. Marshall
    2011-09-14

    The scenario has become all too familiar in recent years: a borrower defaults on a loan and, when the lender pursues the loan collateral through foreclosure or other proceedings, the borrower files for bankruptcy protection. More often than not, when the lender appears in bankruptcy court to pursue its interest in the collateral, the borrower counterattacks with a host of state law lender liability claims.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Interest, Tortious interference, Foreclosure, Default (finance), US Congress, Title 11 of the US Code, US Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
    Subrogation to ‘claims’ entitles subrogee to vote on behalf of itself and subrogor
    2011-09-14

    Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC v. National Bank of Arizona, et al. (In re Avondale Gateway Center Entitlement, LLC), 2011 WL 1376997 (D. Ariz. Apr. 12, 2011)

    CASE SNAPSHOT

    Filed under:
    USA, Arizona, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Limited liability company, Debt, Voting, Capital punishment, Title 11 of the US Code, Arizona Supreme Court
    Authors:
    Christopher O. Rivas
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP
    Split in courts continues—private stock purchase payments not protected by Section 546 safe harbor
    2011-09-14

    Geltzer v. Mooney (In re MacMenamin’s Grill Ltd.), Adv. Case. No. 09-8266, Bankr. Case No. 08-23660, 2011 WL 1549056 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011)

    CASE SNAPSHOT

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Bankruptcy, Shareholder, Debtor, Security (finance), Fraud, Safe harbor (law), Writ, Leveraged buyout, Systemic risk, Secured loan, Title 11 of the US Code, Trustee, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Brian M. Schenker
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP
    Credit swap agreement ipso facto clause struck
    2011-09-14

    Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Ballyrock ABS-CDO 2007-1 Limited (In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.) No. 09-01032 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011)  

    CASE SNAPSHOT

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Derivatives, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Bankruptcy, Surety, Debtor, Injunction, Swap (finance), Liquidation, Asset forfeiture, Default (finance), Collateralized debt obligation, Mortgage-backed security, Right to property, Lehman Brothers, US District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Authors:
    Kathleen A. Murphy
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP
    Bad boy guaranties
    2011-09-14

    We all know that many large commercial real estate loan transactions include “bad boy” guaranties from the principals of the borrower which spring into action upon the occurrence of certain events, like the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Some borrowers do not take these guaranties seriously since they think that they are in violation of public policy and/or constitute an unenforceable penalty.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Conflict of interest, Shareholder, Surety, Debtor, Commercial property, Fiduciary, Interest, Mortgage loan, Bank of America
    Authors:
    Peter S. Clark, II
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP
    Seventh Circuit rejects bankruptcy confirmation plan that eliminates credit bidding
    2011-09-18

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision refusing to confirm debtors’ reorganization plan that included auction procedures that forbade secured creditors from “credit bidding” for the assets. Inre River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 10-3597, 2011 WL 2547615 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011). In that case, the debtors (owners of various hotel properties) proposed a plan of reorganization that included auctioning certain properties encumbered by security interests.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Frost Brown Todd LLP, Credit (finance), Debtor, Interest, Federal Reporter, Limited liability company, Consent, US Code, United States bankruptcy court, Fifth Circuit, Third Circuit, Seventh Circuit
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Frost Brown Todd LLP
    Second Circuit adopts net investment method to determine net equity in Madoff bankruptcy case
    2011-09-13

    On August 16, 2011, the Second Circuit held that Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Trustee"), utilized the correct methodology to determine the "net equity" of each Madoff investor under the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA").

    Filed under:
    USA, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Share (finance), Bankruptcy, Debtor, Security (finance), Fraud, Limited liability company, Option (finance), Liquidation, Broker-dealer, Investment funds, Market value, Title 11 of the US Code, Trustee, Second Circuit, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Seyfarth Shaw LLP
    It's important to record the trustee's deed promptly after foreclosure
    2011-09-13

    The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently held that the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a borrower can void a trustee sale even where the petition is filed after the trustee sale, so long as the borrower files the petition before the execution of the trustee's deed upon sale. In re: Gonzales 2011 WL3328508 (Bkrtcy. C.D.Cal. August 1, 2011).

    Filed under:
    USA, California, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Option (finance), Foreclosure, Deed, Default (finance), Capital punishment, Deed of trust (real estate), Secured loan, California Civil Code, Trustee, US District Court for Central District of California, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
    Shareholders permitted to retain ownership under ‘new value exception’ to ‘absolute priority rule’
    2011-09-14

    In re Red Mountain Machinery Company, 448 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2011)

    CASE SNAPSHOT

    Filed under:
    USA, Arizona, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Reed Smith LLP, Shareholder, Debtor, Unsecured debt, Interest, Line of credit, Chief financial officer, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Christopher O. Rivas
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Reed Smith LLP

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 295
    • Page 296
    • Page 297
    • Page 298
    • Current page 299
    • Page 300
    • Page 301
    • Page 302
    • Page 303
    • …
    • 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