NOTABLE BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY DECISIONS OF 2014
ALLOWANCE/DISALLOWANCE/PRIORITY/DISCHARGE OF CLAIMS
We admit, discovery disputes rarely make for titillating blog posts. But a letter ruling issued towards the end of last year by Judge Shannon in Longview Power, LLC et al. v. First American Title Insurance Co. recently caught our eye.
The Third Circuit Rules in Favor of the Bankruptcy Estate Creating a Further Circuit Split
Mississippi bankruptcy court holds that agreement encompassing both settlement agreement resolving claims for past-due performance royalties and contemporaneously executed ASCAP licensing agreements is not a single agreement, permitting the debtor to assume the licensing agreements without paying-or curing any default on payment of $400,000 due under the settlement agreement.
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 section IV.E of its report and recommendations of reforms to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “Commission”) considered changes to the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.
Introduction
A mortgage lender sought sanctions against the debtor, its sole shareholder and its attorney. It alleged that the bankruptcy petition was filed for an improper purpose.
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
On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability. Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.