The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has answered a lingering question about the interpretation of Massachusetts’s fine art consignment law, G.L. c. 104A, § 2. Laying to rest any doubts about whether a written agreement is required at the time of delivery to create a consignment under the statute, the SJC has interpreted the 2006 amendments to the law for the first time and clarified the roles of everyone involved.
In re Denman, 513 B.R. 720 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A chapter 13 debtor was a member of a limited liability company. Another member sought relief from the automatic stay in order to exercise a right to acquire the debtor’s membership interests pursuant to the LLC operating agreement.
On September 8th, 2014 the Court of International Trade dismissed an importer’s challenge to CBP’s liquidation of entries subject to anti-dumping duties. The importer claimed the entries should have been subject to suspension of liquidation but were not. The court determined that regardless of what should have occurred, the liquidation took place, and the importer did not take any action to reverse or negate that action.
In two recent decisions, ASARCO LLC v. Goodwin, 756 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) and ASARCO LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 755 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014), the Second Circuit and the Tenth Circuit each held that a reorganized bankruptcy debtor's direct contribution claims against other potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
In a recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi joined the debate over the interpretation of section 547(c)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, which sets forth the new value defense to a preference claim.
Introduction
On February 13, 2014, the New Mexico Supreme Court filed its Opinion in Bank of New York v. Romero, 2014-NMSC-007. The opinion in BNY v.
The US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") recently upheld the validity of a commercial lease provision by which a debtor/tenant waived its rights to seek relief from forfeiture (i.e., termination) of the lease under California law. As a result, the debtor/tenant had no right in the bankruptcy case to assume the lease. In re Art and Architecture Books of the 21st Century, Case No. 2:13-bk-14135-RK (September 18, 2014).
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12-mc-115 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2014) [click for opinion]
On August 26, 2014, Judge Robert D. Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a bench ruling in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, Case No. 14-22503 (RDD), on several aspects of the plan of reorganization filed by debtor Momentive Performance Materials, Inc., a specialty chemicals manufacturing company, and its affiliated debtors.