An Analysis of Ohio’s Amended Receivership Law Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP January 2015 © Copyright 2015, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. vorys.com Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................1 Affected Statutes..........................................................................2 Grounds for Appointment............................................................2 Scope of Receiver’s Authority – “Property Receivers” vs.
In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2014) –
The successful bidder at a bankruptcy auction of a ranch claimed that a cattle chute was included in the sold assets. The debtors disagreed. Resolution of the dispute turned on whether the cattle chute constituted a fixture that was part of the real estate.
In Beeman v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust (In re BGI, Inc.), 772 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the doctrine of “equitable mootness” applied to the appeal of a confirmation order approving a liquidating chapter 11 plan. In a matter of first impression, the court ruled that the standards governing equitable mootness in an appeal of an order confirming a chapter 1 1 plan of reorganization also apply in the context of a chapter 11 liquidation.
In its first bankruptcy decision of 2014 (October Term, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held on March 4, 2014, in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), that a bankruptcy court cannot impose a surcharge on exempt property due to a chapter 7 debtor’s misconduct. In reversing a ruling by the Ninth Circuit, Law v. Siegel (In re Law), 2011 BL 148411 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct.
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
This is the fourth post in our Bitcoin Bankruptcy series on the Weil Bankruptcy Blog.
Illinois’ municipal distress is severe and we have witnessed the political maneuvers to address Chicago’s ongoing fiscal dilemma. In 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel stoked bankruptcy fears citing the city’s ballooning pension obligations that he estimated could exceed $1.6 billion in 2016. Pew Charitable Trusts has reported that among the nation’s five largest cities, Chicago has put aside the smallest portion of its looming pensions obligations. While certain changes have been made to counter the pension funding deficit, including Governor Quinn’s hotly contested
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.
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.