FCA Implications for M&A Transactions
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management...more
On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would review the Seventh Circuit’s decision in FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Merit”), which addressed the scope of...more
On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split...more
On March 22, 2017 in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (SCOTUS Case no. 15-649), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a bankruptcy court was not authorized to approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case...more
In a resounding 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an existing split among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, determining that "actual fraud" under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not require...more
The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case that will be a powerful tool for lenders dealing with borrowers who engage in schemes to avoid payment of their debts, such as an improper transfer of their assets...more
On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal...more
On May 16, the bankruptcy world of “actual fraud” got larger. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court addressed what it recognized was a deepening circuit split regarding the interpretation of “actual...more
On May 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the meaning of “actual fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code. Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz represents a win for creditors by making it easier to...more
On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Husky International Electronic, Inc. v. Ritz. The opinion is a favorable development for creditors because it expands the types of fraudulent conduct that can...more
In its recently issued decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court has clarified that intentionally fraudulent transfers designed to hinder or defraud creditors can fall...more
May is usually a busy month on the Supreme Court before the justices head off for some summer R&R. It is historically a time when many opinions are issued, and May 2016 has been no exception. ...more
The Supreme Court’s Decision: On May 16, 2016, in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Daniel Lee Ritz, Jr., Case No. 15-145, the Supreme Court held that the term “actual fraud” in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy...more
In a decision rendered on May 16, 2016, in the case of Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exception to bankruptcy discharge for debts incurred through actual fraud applies to...more
On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz (No. 15-145), holding that the term “actual fraud” in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (one of the discharge exceptions)...more
The United States Supreme Court clarified in Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S.(2016) that “actual fraud” as used in Section 523(a)(2)(A) is broad enough to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes and does not...more
Kohut v. Wayne County Treasurer (In re Lewiston), 528 B.R. 387 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015) – The debtor made property tax payments on behalf of several real estate projects. The chapter 7 trustee sought to recover those...more
Cooper v. WPD Polar Ridge, LLC (In re Poplar Ridge, LLC), 526 B.R. 147 (W.D. N.C. 2015) – After a developer defaulted, the trustee under a deed of trust held a pre-petition foreclosure sale. The issue was whether the...more
In this Article: - Introduction - A Tale as Old as Time: The Evolution of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Before Stern - Let’s Talk About Stern, Baby - Much Ado About Nothing: Executive Benefits Insurance...more
Baker Botts L.L.P. et al. v. ASARCO L.L.C., currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, is of particular interest to bankruptcy practitioners because this decision will have far-reaching effects regarding...more
The United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called “Stern claims,” they can try or “hear” those...more
On June 19, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165 (2014) affirmed and clarified its prior decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) which...more
Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however,...more
In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v. Marshall and made clear that a...more
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several...more