Bankruptcy attorneys are familiar with the statutory defenses to preferences and fraudulent transfers. Less familiar is the so-called “contract assumption defense.” Courts have employed that non-statutory defense to bar preferences and fraudulent transfers based on three primary arguments:
A debtor’s attorney may be compensated or reimbursed from the estate if his fees or costs constitute an administrative expense under § 503(a).
In Law Solutions Chicago LLC v. United States Trustee (In re Banks),[1] the Fifth Circuit upheld multiple sanctions against a national consumer bankruptcy law firm for misleading and neglecting clients.
Published by the ABI Health Care Committee
Published by the ABI Health Care Committee
Published by the ABI Health Care Committee
The General Corporation Law of Delaware (DGCL) provides a right of action against corporate directors who declare a dividend while the corporation is insolvent. Such conduct may also give rise to claims for fraudulent transfer or breach of fiduciary duty, but unlawful dividend claims have several advantages.
The Fifth Circuit recently certified an important question under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) to the Texas Supreme Court. At issue is the futility exception to the good-faith defense provided by § 8(a) of UFTA.
Does a bankruptcy court have the power to enter a final order in a fraudulent-transfer action where the defendant has not filed a proof of claim, or is the bankruptcy court limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review and entry of judgment? On March 11, 2019, in Paragon Litigation Trust v. Nobel Corp., et al.
In a “code-driven” discipline such as bankruptcy, third-party releases are a rare breed. As a form of equitable relief available to certain nondebtors in certain court-decreed circumstances in certain circuits, they are shrouded in a level of uncertainty seldom seen elsewhere. A recent holding from In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
