In re 2408 W. Kennedy, LLC, 512 B.R. 708 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014) –
A commercial landlord sought relief from the automatic stay so that it could complete prepetition eviction proceedings against the debtor. The debtor objected, arguing that it had a right to assume the lease. The case turned on whether the landlord effectively terminated the lease prepetition.
The trustee of a liquidating trust under a general contractor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan tried to recover pre-petition payments made to a subcontractor as either a preference or a fraudulent conveyance. The court’s decision turned on whether the payments were trust funds under the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act.
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Stern v. Marshall1 that a bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to render a final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s counterclaim against a creditor based on state common law, despite an express statutory grant of jurisdiction. This ruling is the most significant decision regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction since the Court’s 1982 decision in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon2 and it could significantly affect the administration of bankruptcy cases.
Root of the Constitutional Problem
Creditors of insolvent Delaware corporations have recourse against corporate directors and officers whose disloyal or self-dealing conduct reduces the corporation’s assets available for distribution. Delaware courts have held that directors and officers of insolvent corporations owe fiduciary duties to creditors as the principal stakeholders in the remaining corporate assets. Where those duties are breached, creditors have standing to bring actions derivatively on behalf of the corporation for damages to the corporation. However, in a recent decision by Vice Chancellor J.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that potentially broadens the proximate cause element of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO’s proximate cause element requires a plaintiff to allege facts plausibly establishing that there is a “direct relationship” between the claimed injury and the defendant’s conduct in violation of RICO.
Client Alert
On May 7, 2020, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo enacted Executive Order No. 202.28, which extended and expanded — but in some cases narrowed — the temporary suspension of several New York state laws due to the COVID-19 crisis. The Executive Order impacts many industries and individuals in New York state, including both commercial and residential landlords and tenants.
On January 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the class action complaint filed by plaintiff Muhammad M. Butt against FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data in the case styled, Butt v. FD Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Factual Data. A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found here.
Even under the most sympathetic of circumstances, courts are charged with respecting the integrity of deadlines and employing a cool, impartial approach to everyone, including the most desperate of late claimants.