By the authority of the Heavenly Court, and by the authority of the earthly court, we hold it permissible to pray with those who have transgressed… — Kol Nidrei (Preamble)
In the seemingly never-ending post-Stern quest to elucidate what constitutes a “core” versus “non-core” matter – and exactly what impact that distinction has on the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final judgment – the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently set out to answer the question of whether a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress properly is cons
It’s hard to believe, but until now, the Seventh Circuit has never weighed in on the issue of when a claim arises in a bankruptcy case. As a result, the Seventh Circuit has had the luxury of sitting back, watching the Third Circuit go from Frenville to
Providing notice to creditors of actions that could affect their interests is one of a debtor’s most important responsibilities. Absent proper notice, relief requested by a debtor that may be warranted could nonetheless be denied. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure set out pages and pages of rules regarding the time periods, form, and content of notices that a debtor, among others, must follow. As the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado recently reminded us in the
“Who by water and who by fire, who by sword and who by beast, who by famine and who by thirst, who by [bankruptcy courts deciding matters that are outside their constitutional authority]”
– Rosh Hashanah liturgy, as modified
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto [CEC] the things that are [CEC’s] [?]” – Matthew 22:21 (as revised)
How many ages hence / Shall this our lofty scene be acted o’er, / In states unborn, and accents yet unknown!
– William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Some bankruptcy cases can have long tails with issues developing years after the entities confirm their chapter 11 plans. That seems to be particularly true when cases deal with mass torts. As the recent case of Piper Aircraft Corporation demonstrates, an issue can arise in a chapter 11 case over twenty years after the debtor’s plan was confirmed. In
In resolving a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add new claims, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Hosking v.