It is spring and the stands will soon ring with the oft-heard refrain, the clarion call of players and fans alike, “Hey ump, read the rules!” In Rosenberg v.
Funds passing through a correspondent bank account in New York can create personal jurisdiction over the funds’ recipient, ruled the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Arcapita Bank B.S.C. v.
Do you serve on your condominium’s board as a fun way to meet your neighbors and test out your governance skills? What seems like a low-commitment diversion can balloon into a stressful time suck – or worse. You may be held personally liable for breaching fiduciary duties to your condo. And if you fall into really bad luck and end up in bankruptcy, you may not even be able to discharge debts for such liability, as a recent Fifth Circuit decision reminds us.
We’ve previously written on various cases in which parties have sought to save or revive late filed pleadings by arguing those pleadings “relate back” to previously filed documents with varying degrees of success.
Despite the initial glee of the prospect of a United States that was independent of Middle East oil, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014, the price of oil started dropping precipitously. As noted in a recent article, over 80 bankruptcies in the oil industry were filed in 2015, up 471 % over calendar year 2014.
In a unanimous decision arising out of the Tribune Media Company bankruptcy cases, a panel of the Second Circuit held that the safe harbor under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which precludes avoidance of certain transfers by a
In a typical application of the veil piercing remedy, an equity holder is held liable for the debts of the corporate entity it owns and controls. The tests courts use for determining when the remedy is available vary, but generally veil piercing may occur only where the equity holder has abused the corporate form, by using its control over an entity to commit a fraud or other injustice.
Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.
When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?