“First in time, first in right,” is one of the first things taught in a law school’s secured transactions class. Yet a recent ruling from the U.S.
Sites Committee
Committees
At last count, there were almost 100 pieces of legislation introduced into the 116th Congress relating to student loans, education financing and debt. As might be expected, a number of bills are related to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy.
Many struggling to pay off student loans today may be surprised to find out that student loans were once freely dischargeable in bankruptcy. But due to abuse, it has become increasingly difficult to discharge student loan debt. It is currently one of the most difficult classes of debt to discharge.
On August 5, 2019, I had the enlightening opportunity of discussing mediation with Rick Mikels, a seasoned bankruptcy practitioner whose appreciation for the nuances of mediation is remarkable. Rick was one of the first students of the ABI/St.
Anyone who has spent any time mediating, either representing a party or acting as the neutral, knows that the role of a mediator is typically defined by the parties, the nature of the litigation and the best path toward a resolution. Certainly, a mediator is a neutral facilitator, but the same can be said of arbitrators.
Asset sales under § 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code [1] have become a critical component of the bankruptcy practitioner’s arsenal, and a preferred avenue of monetizing a debtor’s assets.
The ABI Asset Sale Committee awarded the inaugural Asset Sale of the Year Award to the asset sale in the Cobalt Energy case.[1] Cobalt International Energy Inc.
All too often, attorneys misunderstand (or worse, disregard) the importance of local rules in numerous contexts —particularly in the area of asset sales. Rather than they be merely an afterthought, practitioners should be encouraged to make the local rules a jumping-off point when seeking to conduct a sale through § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.
In Devices Liquidation Trust v. KMT Wireless LLC (In re Pers. Commc’ns Devices LLC), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York denied a critical vendor’s motion for summary judgment that advocated for a “hindsight extrapolation” approach to the critical-vendor defense.[1]
The value of the legitimate cannabis industry in the U.S. (measured by annual sales) is rapidly approaching $10 billion and is expected by some to exceed $20 billion within the next five years. As the market grows, companies that do not grow or sell cannabis are nonetheless doing business with some that do.
