In our current bankruptcy regime, sales under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code are by far the norm, followed by conversion or dismissal, and sometimes, instead, a liquidating plan. Liquidating plans can be a favorable way to wrap up a bankruptcy case, freeing the debtor from many of the filing, procedural and disclosure burdens of the Bankruptcy Code and simplifying the wind-down process.
On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an order[1] to reduce a chapter 13 debtor’s attorney’s fee application by more than 70 percent.
On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a 51-page opinion resolving its Order Setting Show Cause Hearing (the “show cause order”) in the chapter 13 case of Netoche Brigham Fair (the debtor, or “Ms.
A critical issue for all attorneys who represent debtors in bankruptcy is how to ensure payment for services performed both prior to and after a bankruptcy filing.
[1]Under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, recognition of a foreign proceeding is required to obtain a stay of proceeding against the property of the foreign debtor located in the United States, to entrust such property to the representative of the foreign debtor, and to receive other important protections and rights.
n what is often viewed a rudimentary inquiry, recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under chapter 15 can be a closely scrutinized affair. In In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), 543 B.R. 498 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016), Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a chapter 15 case after concluding that the debtors’ “Center of Main Interests” (“COMI”) did not change to the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) — the debtors’ letterbox jurisdiction and where the initial liquidation was filed.
While the bankruptcy process may bring a new beginning, the Bankruptcy Code provides — and some say rightfully so — debtors with much less protection against tax claims than other types of claims for public policy and much-applauded revenue reasons.
Despite lingering questions concerning the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the wake of Supreme Court decisions in Stern v. Marshall[1] and Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., et al v.
Editor's Note: In re Perl is a case that may have significant ramifications, which has drawn the following articles by Jesse Valdez, Esq., who examines why the Court reached the correct decision, and by Shannon Doyle, E
Chapter 7 debtors who own real property need to understand their options, and the potential consequences of their choices. In Failla v. Citibank, 542 B.R. 606 (S.D. Fla. 2015),[1] the court held that a debtor who states his or her intention to surrender under Section 521(a)(2) cannot defend a subsequent foreclosure.
