Evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent, otherwise known in Kentucky as a forcible detainer action, is usually the most straightforward method for a landlord to terminate a tenant’s right to the premises. Although Kentucky judges will offer a hearing to any tenant who requests one, one of the few accepted legal defenses a tenant can present during this hearing is proof that rent was in fact paid within the required timeframe.
In a favorable ruling to creditors and bankruptcy trustees, SCOTUS issued its ruling yesterday in Husky Int'l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz (In re Ritz) addressing a circuit split on whether “actual fraud” requires a debtor in bankruptcy to have made a false representation. The 7-1 majority found that “actual fraud” under §523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes, even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.
JPMorgan Chase & Co received a painful reminder recently that mistakes can be very costly after their appeal to the Second Circuit was remanded; the clerical mix-up could cost the company $1.5 billion.
Section 9-509(d)(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides that a UCC-3 termination statement is effective only if “the secured party of record authorizes the filing.”
In the new Legal Forum Column, BGD attorney April A. Wimberg discussed bankruptcy filings. Read his advice below and don’t miss our monthly Legal Forum Column in Louisville Business First.
Topic
Bankruptcy filings are expected to rise in 2016. Are there any steps I should take to protect myself and my business?
Advice
As we end one of the slowest years for corporate bankruptcy filings, all indicators point to the fact that filings should heat up in 2016. Bankruptcy can be extremely disruptive to clients; however, the following tips may help your clients that could find themselves creditors, or debtors, in the new year.
The Buzz of Burgeoning Bankruptcy Filings
The Supreme Court recently confirmed in Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif that parties may consent to having bankruptcy judges resolve their non-core claims – claims to which bankruptcy courts would normally lack adjudicatory authority. The issue presented to the court was whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by the bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and if so, whether implied consent based on a litigant’s conduct is sufficient to satisfy Article III.