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
    From the top: recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling
    2011-04-01

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2010 Term (which extends from October 2010 to October 2011, although the Court hears argument only until June or July) officially got underway on October 4, three days after Elena Kagan was formally sworn in as the Court’s 112th Justice and one of three female Justices sitting on the Court.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Bankruptcy, Costs in English law, Debtor, Federal Reporter, Ex post facto law, Debt, Tax deduction, Dissenting opinion, Majority opinion, Article III US Constitution, Internal Revenue Service (USA), US Congress, Westlaw, SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit
    Authors:
    Mark G. Douglas
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Jones Day
    New U.S. Supreme Court rulings
    2010-08-11

    When a bankruptcy court calculates the "projected disposable income" in a repayment plan proposed by an above-median-income chapter 13 debtor, the court may "account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation," the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hamilton v. Lanning on June 7. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel A.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Tax exemption, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Interest, Personal property, Dissenting opinion, Majority opinion, Title 11 of the US Code, SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, Trustee
    Authors:
    Mark G. Douglas
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Jones Day
    Collateral surcharge denied despite inadequacy of carve-out due to express waiver in DIP financing agreement
    2008-08-01

    As a general rule, absent an express agreement to the contrary, expenses associated with administering the bankruptcy estate, including pledged assets, are not chargeable to a secured creditor’s collateral or claim but must be paid out of the estate’s unencumbered assets. Recognizing, however, that the bankruptcy estate may be called upon to bear significant expense in connection with preserving or disposing of encumbered assets as part of an overall reorganization (or liquidation) strategy, U.S.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Collateral (finance), Waiver, Property tax, Limited liability company, Foreclosure, Condominium, Liquidation, Secured creditor, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, Trustee
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Jones Day
    Actual test and Footstar approach govern DIP’s ability to assume patent and technology license
    2007-12-11

    Lawmakers’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s bankruptcy laws two years ago as part of the sweeping reforms implemented by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA ”) failed to resolve a number of important business bankruptcy issues that have been and continue to be the subject of protracted debate among the bankruptcy and appellate courts.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Jones Day, Bankruptcy, Conflict of laws, Debtor, Consumer protection, Consideration, Consent, US Federal Government, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Jones Day
    Transferee(s) may be protected despite unknown bankruptcy of transferor
    2008-09-09

    Buyers of, and lenders upon, distressed California real property can sleep a little better following a recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: In the Matter of Craig L. Tippett, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18914 (September 4, 2008). In Tippett, the Court upheld the California bona fide purchaser statute against a federal preemption claim and declined to find a violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision in order to affirm an unauthorized real property sale by the Chapter 7 debtor.

    Filed under:
    USA, California, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Federal preemption, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Good faith, Constructive notice, US Code, Title 11 of the US Code, California Civil Code, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Trustee
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)
    Ninth Circuit Declines To Decide When Contempt Sanction Becomes Punishment
    2018-07-25

    Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Ninth Circuit, US District Court for Central District of California
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)
    Clear Error They Say! Supreme Court Opines On Standard Of Review For Determining Non-Statutory Insider Status
    2018-03-18

    Last April, we updated you that the Supreme Court had granted review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our most recent post is here.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Bankruptcy, SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Jay Krystinik
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)
    Supreme Court Grants Cert on, of all Things, the Standard of Review for Determining Non-Statutory Insider Status
    2017-04-26

    Last December, we updated you that the Supreme Court was considering whether to grant review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our original post is here. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted review of Village at Lakeridge, but only as to one question presented, the most boring one in our view.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit, United States bankruptcy court, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Authors:
    Jay Krystinik
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)
    What Do You Mean My Claim Is Capped? Ninth Circuit Ruling Further Clarifies Types Of Damages Excluded From A Landlord’s Claim In Bankruptcy
    2017-03-02

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided landlords dealing with a rejected lease with further guidance on the size and basis of their claims against a tenant’s bankruptcy estate. Kupfer v. Salma (In re Kupfer), No. 14-16697 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2016). The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory cap – 11 U.S.C.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Bankruptcy, Landlord, Leasehold estate, Ninth Circuit
    Authors:
    Natalie Daghbandan
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)
    Are Those Taxes Owing On Your Late-Filed Tax Return Dischargeable? Maybe, But You Better Be In The Right Circuit
    2016-07-25

    Individual debtors with old tax debts relating to late-filed tax returns may be surprised to find that those tax debts may not be dischargeable under section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code due to the lateness of the tax filing. There is a current Circuit split regarding whether a late tax filing constitutes a “return” at all, which is critical to the dischargeability inquiry. The Ninth Circuit weighed in last week in In re Smith, 2016 WL 3749156 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016), further cementing the split.

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Tax, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Debtor, Debt, Tax return (United States), Title 11 of the US Code, Internal Revenue Service (USA), Ninth Circuit
    Authors:
    Justin A. Sabin , Bryce A. Suzuki
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave)

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 41
    • Page 42
    • Page 43
    • Page 44
    • Current page 45
    • Page 46
    • Page 47
    • Page 48
    • Page 49
    • …
    • 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