Bgi creditors liquidating trust

28 Jan

Here, the court agreed with the reasoning of opinion more accurately addressed the history and function of safe harbors and it agreed with the position that the states’ historic police powers were not to be superseded by federal law without clear congressional intent. The court further held that section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is not applicable to administrative expense claims. Traditionally, lenders loan money to law and medical graduates, among others, after graduation to allow these individuals to study for their licensing exams or to relocate. The court explained that under rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment will be granted if the moving party can show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts that would have affected its decision. Likewise, they do not abuse the bankruptcy process because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prohibits filing a proof of claim when the underlying debt is subject to a statute of limitations defense. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, automatic stay, labor law, Norris-La Guardia Act, property of the estate —Andrew M. The dissent emphasized that a stay pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy and asserted that the majority’s interpretation weakens the existing test by permitting the grant of a stay even when monetary damages can remedy the alleged harm. The debtors in sought to enforce the automatic stay against a labor union representing some of the debtors’ employees.

In some instances, a business is not in distress but wishes to retire debt at a discount, restructure operations, or recapitalize.

Our lawyers work with healthy companies seeking creative techniques to achieve specific business goals.

Bruce draws on his deep understanding of the nuanced complexities of the bankruptcy process and law–and on his keen business sense–to represent clients in bankruptcy, workouts, and other forums.

Acting as both business advisor and lawyer, Bruce proactively engages with clients to achieve solutions that align with their business objectives.

We also prosecute and defend all types of litigation related to bankruptcy proceedings.We are noted for representing the interests of shareholders and investors in securities fraud class actions against corporate defendants that are in bankruptcy. The PAH Litigation Trust (the trustee) asserted fraudulent transfer claims against certain shareholders of Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. The defendants allegedly directed the debtor to overstate its revenue in connection with the marketing and sale of the company. August 23, 2016 The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion on a matter of first impression for the court: whether an allowed post-petition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. As a result, she filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code and sought to discharge the Citibank loan on the basis that it did not fall within the “educational benefit” exemption. The plaintiff failed to make the required showing under either rule 59(e) or rule 60(b). 4, 2016), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or BAP, ruled that the bankruptcy court used the incorrect standard when imposing court-initiated sanctions against a party. In reaching its holding, the court acknowledged a split of authority as to whether filing a proof of claim for a stale claim violates the FDCPA and recognized that the Eleventh Circuit had reached a different result. The days after the CBA expired, the debtors made a proposal to the labor union in respect of a new agreement. On September 26, 2014, the labor union began contacting potential customers of the debtors, discussing the ongoing labor dispute and encouraging the debtors’ potential clients to relocate their events to other sites.Those other cases included: (1) , in which the United States District Court for the District of Delaware determined that PHP LLC, a group of creditors established pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan to liquidate assets of PHP Corporation, was not prohibited from asserting avoidance actions under state law (291 B. Judge Craig also ruled that the opposing decisions on the issues cited by Citibank were not persuasive because none of those cases interpreted how the term “educational benefit” was defined in the bankruptcy code. 15, 2015), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dismissed an adversary proceeding upon determining that the debtors had released the asserted claims through an earlier settlement agreement. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, debt, proof of claim —Brendan J. The appellant argued that his failure to obtain the debtor’s signature on documents was a genuine oversight, was not done in bad faith and was therefore not sanctionable under 11 U. It first determined that the labor union’s activities fell within the scope of the NLA and were not one of the enumerated exceptions under the NLA, such as for unlawful conduct.Bruce is recognized as a "smart, efficient, practical and very well prepared lawyer" by to comment on topical legal issues.He has also published numerous bankruptcy-related articles. The defendants responded that section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code preempts state fraudulent transfer law. 2003)); (2) , in which the court concluding that section 546(e) does not apply to individual creditors asserting fraudulent transfer claims under state law because “the historic powers of the States were not superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” 503 B. Campbell to be a law student to qualify for the loan did not turn an “arm’s length consumer credit transaction into a ‘benefit’ that would make it eligible for the exemption.” In effect, Judge Craig ruled that the bar expenses loan had the same characteristics as an ordinary consumer loan, regardless of whether Ms. It reasoned that the settlement agreement was intentionally broad and intended to achieve a global resolution of all ongoing disputes between the parties, including those relating to the letter, which predated the 2013 settlement agreement. In reaching this holding, the court determined that, as alleged in the complaint, the remaining fraudulent transactions plausibly amounted to outright looting of the debtors’ corporate assets from which the debtors received no benefit. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, debt, proof of claim —Alexander G. The bankruptcy court’s decision was not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record and therefore the BAP affirmed it. The BAP noted that, in failing to secure the debtor’s signature on numerous filings, the appellant had violated the bankruptcy court’s local rules and the bankruptcy court had, therefore, the authority to suspend the appellant’s privileges. § 105 in order to justify the sanction and that the issue of the appellant’s “bad faith” was therefore irrelevant. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. At the subsequent hearing, the debtors modified their request for relief, asking the court for only a declaratory judgment that the labor union’s contact with the potential clients violated the automatic stay. The trustee argued that the safe harbor provision of 546(e) is inapplicable to its state law fraudulent transfer claims. Judge Craig stated that merely because Citibank required Ms. whether known or unknown.” Applying Minnesota law, which governed the settlement agreement, the Bankruptcy Court determined that AFI had released its claims against Hormel. However, the court also held that other of the trustee’s claims were not subject to dismissal on the basis of the defense will not be applied where outright fraud or looting is committed against the debtor and that fraud or looting does not benefit the debtor in any way. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to raise several new arguments and cautioned that a motion to reconsider is not the appropriate occasion to repeat previously rejected arguments or to make new arguments that previously could have been made. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. The BAP subsequently determined that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted 11 U. The BAP agreed with the bankruptcy court that the applicable standard was whether the ,000 the appellant was paid was excessive for what he accomplished for the debtor, not whether the amount was equal to the time and expense incurred by the appellant. On October 8, 2014, the debtors filed a motion for an order to enforce the automatic stay against the labor union, claiming that it was violating the stay and demanding attorney fees and expenses.