• Landlord/Tenant: lessor did not breach commercial lease by failing to complete construction by date certain where lease did not provide date by which property was to be ready for occupation – 326-330 St. Armands Circle, LLC v. GEE22, LLC, No. 2D12-2395 (Fla.

In December, the Sixth Circuit, in Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie), 737 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir. 2013), addressed two matters of first impression when it adopted the majority rules that (i) a creditor who seeks relief from the bankruptcy automatic stay has the burden to prove the validity of its perfected security interest in collateral; and (ii) the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations on bankruptcy avoidance actions does not prevent the trustee from asserting them defensively under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

As Delaware has often been selected as a preferred place of incorporation by U.S. businesses, and consequently the venue for dissolution and bankruptcies, the recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court, In the Matter of Krafft-Murphy Co., Inc., No. 85, 2013 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), holding that insurance contracts remained property of the dissolved corporation may have significant implications for “orphan shares” at co-disposal, environmental remediation sites, as well as for non-environmental liabilities.

When does the life of a Delaware corporation end? Not as long as there are third-party claimants with claims to assert and undistributed assets available to satisfy them. In Anderson v. Krafft-Murphy, No. 85, 2013 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), asbestos tort claimants in lawsuits pending in other jurisdictions against Krafft-Murphy Co., a dissolved Delaware corporation, sought the appointment of a receiver to enable them to lawfully pursue their claims against the corporation in those other courts beyond the statutory three-year winding-up period.

The Delaware Supreme Court recently offered new insight into a dissolved corporation’s exposure to liability for third party claims. InAnderson v. Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc.,1 the Court held as a matter of first impression in Delaware that the statutory scheme governing the dissolution and winding up of a Delaware corporation does not contain a general statute of limitations that would shield a dissolved corporation from liability.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History2

In Anderson v Krafft-Murphy Co. Inc., 2013 Del. LEXIS 597 (Del. Nov. 26, 2013), the Delaware Supreme Court held that Sections 278 and 279 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a lawsuit to recover avoidable preference payments must be filed prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Specifically, such lawsuits must be commenced before the later of 1. two years after the commencement of the case or 2. one year after the appointment or election of the first Trustee, provided that the two-year period has not already expired.

544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code empowers a bankruptcy trustee to avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that is voidable under "applicable law" by an unsecured creditor. Under the plain language of section 544(b), before a trustee can maintain an avoidance action, the trustee must demonstrate the existence of a qualified creditor, i.e., one who: (i) has a right to avoid the transfers; and (ii) holds an "allowable" unsecured claim. Importantly, the scope of "applicable law" is undefined.

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11’s fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

The two most recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving federal taxes illustrate how a conservative approach to statutory interpretation tends to prevail, but only with great effort, and changing constituencies.

Hall v. United States