Until recently, most attorneys gave little thought as to whether they should be signing proofs of claim in bankruptcy cases on behalf of their clients. If it was more convenient to have an attorney do so, attorneys followed their clients’ wishes and complied.
While a number of circuits have held that bankruptcy courts have authority under § 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to insulate nondebtors via prospective releases of liability in a confirmed plan, the practice is constrained in other circuits.
Determinations as to whether electricity is a “good” for purposes of § 503(b)(9) remains an intensely fact-driven exercise with a lack of consistency coming from the courts. This inconsistency was evidenced by four recent written decisions addressing the issue.
It’s the Facts? It’s the Facts!
In July 2010, amid the worst mortgage meltdown since the Great Depression,[1] the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) was enacted to promulgate pervasive new regulations on mortgage servicers.[2] In reviewing the causes of the mortgage crisis, the U.S. House of Representatives found a need to increase transparency and accountability in the mortgage-servicing field.[3] Accordingly, the Dodd-Frank Act incorporates new servicing regulations requiring mortgage servicers to disclose certain information to delinquent borrowers.
In September 2008 as Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. was reaching a state of crisis, it looked like the company might be able to avoid bankruptcy by completing the sale of certain assets to Barclays PLC. The sale would have provided Lehman with much-needed capital and additional time to plan for an orderly wind-down. After days of frenzied negotiations involving Lehman, Barclays and U.S.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) is the leading electronic registry for mortgage lenders, and is linked more and more each day to the foreclosure crisis.
The following hypothetical demonstrates the scope and application of §327(a) to competing neighboring urban hospitals: Two nonprofit hospitals are separated by three miles in a densely populated low-income urban community. Holy Mackerel sits at one end of Main Street while Baruch Gefilte is at the other. Both are suffering financial difficulties.
Last year, a divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plain language of § 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to propose the sale of a secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens without providing a right to credit-bid, so long as the creditor receives the indubitable equivalent of its claim.
Although several months have now passed since the Supreme Court first decided Stern v.
On July 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued In re XMH Corp.,[1] recognizing for the first time in a published U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that a trademark license is not assignable in bankruptcy without the licensor’s consent. This recognition, however, comes with a significant caveat.
