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
    Automatic stay may be extended to enjoin non-debtors
    2010-08-18

    The automatic stay is one of the most fundamental bankruptcy protections. It enjoins the initiation or continuance of any action by any creditor against the debtor or the debtor’s property, including causes of action possessed by the debtor at time of the bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay offers this protection while bringing all of the debtor’s assets and creditors into the same forum, the bankruptcy court.

    Filed under:
    USA, New York, Capital Markets, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, White Collar Crime, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Injunction, Fraud, Class action, Limited liability company, Liquidation, Conveyancing, Investment company, Securities fraud, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 (RICO) (USA), Trustee, United States bankruptcy court
    Authors:
    Bonnie Dye
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Chadbourne & Parke LLP
    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
    Seventh Circuit dodges intra- and inter-circuit conflict regarding res judicata and bankruptcy
    2011-08-15

    MATRIX IV, INC. v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO (July 28, 2011)

    Filed under:
    USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Bankruptcy, Breach of contract, Fraud, Res judicata and issue estoppel, Estoppel, Summary offence, Common law, Collateral estoppel, Collusion, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 (RICO) (USA), United States bankruptcy court, Seventh Circuit
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
    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, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 (RICO) (USA), Westlaw, Delaware Supreme Court, United States bankruptcy court, US District Court for District of Delaware, Trustee
    Location:
    USA
    Firm:
    Wiley Rein LLP
    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