On Aug. 16, 2011, the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Hon. Burton R.
Sites Committee
Committees
Nothing is more frustrating to a creditor collecting on a promissory note than having the defendant object to the authenticity and/or admissibility of the note—particularly, in response to a creditor’s summary-judgment motion.
The bankruptcy court in Geltzer v.
On March 15, 2011, the Supreme Court of Montana approved amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCP), effective Oct.
This edition of the Ethics and Professional Compensation Committee newsletter marks the first edition from the new leadership. Richard Carmody of Adams & Reese has done an amazing job as our newsletter editor, and we would be remiss not to thank him for his work. Thanks, Richard!
A ruling that an entity lacks standing in a bankruptcy case is usually a frustrating development that means that the party will not have the opportunity to be heard on a matter that may have negative consequences for it. In Savage Associates PC v.
Creditors and parties in interest frequently file objections to bankruptcy professionals’ fee requests incurred during the case. According to the U.S. Trustee’s Annual Report of Significant Accomplishments for FY 2009, [1] the U.S.
The Ninth Circuit recently upheld a motion for sanctions against an attorney and his law firm for improperly removing a case. This raises the question of whether there is a trend of courts developing less tolerance for aggressive litigation tactics or whether this was an isolated incident where the facts justified the application of sanctions at any period of time.
Two recent decisions have provided guidance concerning the scope of a lender’s right to collect “rents” generated by a debtor in possession, and the debtor’s corresponding ability to use those “rents” in furtherance of its restructuring efforts: In re Ocean Place Development LLC[1] and In re Soho 25 Retail LLC.
