A (800) (800)
|
|
- Austen O’Neal’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF QUEBECOR WORLD (USA) INC., v. AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Petitioner, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION PAUL STEVEN SINGERMAN Counsel of Record ILYSE M. HOMER ISAAC M. MARCUSHAMER LARA E. O DONNELL BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Ste Miami, FL singerman@bergersingerman.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae A (800) (800)
2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITES ii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.. 1 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE EXISTING CIRCUIT CONFLICT ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED CREATES LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN OUR BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM IN AN IMPORTANT AREA OF LAW A. Federal Circuits Are Split On Whether The 546(e) Exemption To A Trustee s Avoidance Power Reaches Entities Acting As Mere Intermediaries For Transferred Property i. In Munford, the Eleventh Circuit holds that transfers through a financial institution acting solely as an intermediary do not fall within the scope of the 546(e) exemption
3 ii Table of Contents Page ii. Various circuits, including the court below, erroneously reject Munford, holding that transfers through a mere intermediary are exempt under 546(e) from a trustee s avoidance powers iii. The above represents a direct and important conflict regarding interpretation of the bankruptcy code II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE CASE RAISES AN IMPORTANT AND RECURRING QUESTION CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF TRUSTEES TO EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTER BANKRUPTCY CASES
4 iii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES CASES Page Contemporary Industries Corp. v. Frost, 546 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2009) , 7 Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924) , 13 In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 848 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir. 1988) In re Munford, Inc., 98 F.3d 604 (11th Cir. 1996) passim In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2009) , 6 In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., 719 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2013) , 8 In re Resorts International, Inc., 181 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1999) , 6 Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151 (1991) , 9
5 iv Cited Authorities STATUTES AND AUTHORITIES Page 11 U.S.C U.S.C. 544(b) , 5 11 U.S.C U.S.C. 546(e) passim 11 U.S.C , 9 11 U.S.C. 547(b) , 3, 9 11 U.S.C U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(A) U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) U.S.C. 548(b) U.S.C , 9
6 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 The National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (NABT) is a nonprofit professional association formed in 1982 to address the needs of chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees and promote the effectiveness of the bankruptcy system as a whole. The NABT is committed to improving the administration of bankruptcy by promoting professionalism, education, and the open exchange of ideas among its members and other members in the bankruptcy community. Trustees are private citizens who act as fiduciaries in administering chapter 7 bankruptcy cases and upholding the integrity of those proceedings. A trustee is appointed as a disinterested, independent person and works primarily for the benefit of the debtor s unsecured creditors. There are approximately 1,100 chapter 7 trustees who are currently receiving new cases, a majority of whom are NABT members. Trustees are familiar with the bankruptcy process and have a depth of experience relating to the disposition of estate assets and in recovering those assets for the estate. Chapter 7 trustees also frequently serve as trustees over liquidating or litigation trusts that are formed as part of confirmed chapter 11 plans. 1. Undersigned counsel authored this brief pro bono, and no party s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party or party s counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. No person other than the NABT, its members, or its counsel has made any such monetary contribution. All parties have consented to the filing of this brief and such consents are being submitted herewith.
7 2 A trustee s duties include prosecuting claims held by the estate or successor trust which the creditors are beneficiaries. Critical to a trustee s administrative function is the power to avoid transfers, including preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. 547(b), and transfers pursuant to other Bankruptcy Code provisions granting avoidance power to trustees. This power allows trustees to, among other things, avoid payments procured by relatively junior creditors in anticipation of bankruptcy. In connection with this authority, 11 U.S.C. 546(e) serves the salutary purpose of limiting those avoidance powers in certain circumstances. However, the Second Circuit s interpretation of 546(e) in the case below substantially and needlessly curtails the avoidance powers of trustees in a manner inconsistent with the Code, threatening the underlying goal of achieving parity among similarly situated creditors. The NABT has an interest in the outcome of this case because an overly expansive view of 546(e) hampers the ability of bankruptcy trustees to exercise their fiduciary duties and to effectively administer estates. The Second Circuit s interpretation of 546(e) severely restricts a trustee s ability to effectively administer an estate through use of the trustee s avoidance powers. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the same transfers would not be subject to a 546(e) defense in courts that hold the other way. Thus, this Court s review is needed to resolve the circuit split, provide uniformity in application of the Bankruptcy Code in this important area, correct the Second Circuit s erroneous interpretation of the statute, and thereby advance the Code s purpose of treating similarly situated creditors equally.
8 3 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE EXISTING CIRCUIT CONFLICT ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED CREATES LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN OUR BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM IN AN IMPORTANT AREA OF LAW A. Federal Circuits Are Split On Whether The 546(e) Exemption To A Trustee s Avoidance Power Reaches Entities Acting As Mere Intermediaries For Transferred Property Several Bankruptcy Code provisions authorize trustees to avoid property transfers considered to be preferential, fraudulent, or otherwise voidable. See 11 U.S.C. 544, 547, 548. Section 544(b) permits a bankruptcy trustee to avoid transfers of property voidable under state law unless otherwise provided in the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. 544(b). Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a bankruptcy trustee to avoid certain property transfers considered to be preferential. See 11 U.S.C. 547(b). Such transfers impair the claims of other creditors, and avoidance allows the trustee to restore equal status to all creditors. See Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151, (1991). Section 546(e) of the Code limits those avoidance powers. It provides: (e) Notwithstanding sections 544, 545, 547, 548(a)(1)(B), and 548(b) of this title, the trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a margin payment, as defined in section 101, 741, or 761 of
9 4 this title, or settlement payment, as defined in section 101 or 741 of this title, made by or to (or for the benefit of) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency, or that is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency, in connection with a securities contract, as defined in section 741(7), commodity contract, as defined in section 761(4), or forward contract, that is made before the commencement of the case, except under section 548(a)(1)(A) of this title. 11 U.S.C. 546(e). The above language regarding transfers made by or to (or for the benefit of) a financial institution, where the transfer is a settlement payment or made in connection with a securities contract, is the source of the existing circuit split. The Eleventh Circuit and various lower tribunals hold that the transferee entity must be more than a mere conduit and have a beneficial interest in the funds. See In re Munford, Inc., 98 F.3d 604 (11th Cir. 1996). Several circuits, however, including the court below, expressly reject Munford and hold this language exempts from a trustee s avoidance powers financial institutions that serve as mere conduits or intermediaries for the transferred funds. See In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., 719 F.3d 94, (2d Cir. 2013); Contemporary Industries Corp. v. Frost, 546 F.3d 981, (8th Cir. 2009); In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2009); In re Resorts International, Inc., 181 F.3d 505, 516 (3d Cir. 1999).
10 5 i. In Munford, the Eleventh Circuit holds that transfers through a financial institution acting solely as an intermediary do not fall within the scope of the 546(e) exemption In considering whether a transfer to an intermediary financial institution falls within the scope of 546(e), the Eleventh Circuit, in In re Munford, Inc., 98 F.3d 604 (11th Cir. 1996), held that 546(e) did not exempt the subject transfer from a trustee s avoidance powers under 544(b) where the only 546(e) institution involved was a mere intermediary. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned: Funds were deposited with the bank and when the bank received the shares from the selling shareholders, it sent funds to them in exchange. The bank never acquired a beneficial interest in either the funds or the shares. Id. The payments were viewed as having been made by Munford to shareholders, neither of which were 546(e) institutions. Moreover, although a 546(e) financial institution was involved in the transaction, that institution (an intermediary bank) was a mere conduit. Because the bank never had a beneficial interest in the funds or shares in question, it could not serve as a basis for exempting the transfer from avoidance. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that 546(e) did not bar the bankruptcy trustee from avoiding payments which the debtor corporation made to its shareholders in a leveraged buy-out. Id. at 606. Munford notes that its interpretation is consistent with other related provisions in the statutory scheme. For instance, under 550, a trustee may only avoid a transfer to a transferee. Because the bank in Munford never acquired a beneficial interest in the funds, it was not a transferee in the transaction. Id. at 61 0 (citing
11 6 In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 848 F.2d 1196, 1200 (11th Cir.1988)) ( When banks receive money for the sole purpose of depositing it into a customer s account... the bank never has actual control of the funds and is not a 550 transferee. ). The Eleventh Circuit found that the shareholders were the only transferees of the funds in the case before it, and that 546(e) does not protect shareholders from the trustee s avoiding powers. Thus, 546(e) was inapplicable to the transfer because the only 546(e) financial institution involved in the transaction was a mere conduit for the transferred funds, not the transferor or the recipient. Id. ii. Various circuits, including the court below, erroneously reject Munford, holding that transfers through a mere intermediary are exempt under 546(e) from a trustee s avoidance powers Various federal circuits reject Munford, holding that funds passing through an intermediary fi nancial institution are subject to the 546(e) exemption. In In re Resorts International, Inc., 181 F.3d 505, 516 (3d Cir. 1999), the Third Circuit holds that the plain language of 546(e) exempts from a trustee s avoidance powers settlement payments made by a financial institution, regardless of whether the institution has a beneficial interest in the funds. The Third Circuit expressly rejects Munford on grounds that the statute s plain language purportedly does not support Munford s requirement that an entity obtain a beneficial interest in the funds. In In re QSI Holdings, Inc., 571 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit also rejects Munford on grounds
12 7 that the plain language purportedly does not require a financial institution to have a beneficial interest in the funds. The Sixth Circuit held the bank s intermediary role in the transfer was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the transfer was made to a financial institution pursuant to 546(e). In Contemporary Industries Corp. v. Frost, 546 F.3d 981, (8th Cir. 2009), the Eighth Circuit holds that Munford cannot be squared with the plain language of 546(e). The Eighth Circuit explains: By its terms, 546(e) protects settlement payments made by or to a... financial institution, and does not expressly require that the financial institution obtain a beneficial interest in the funds. We have already decided the payments at issue are settlement payments, and First National, a bank, is a financial institution. In re Resorts, Int l, Inc., 181 F.3d at 515. Similarly, it is undisputed that First National received the payments from CIH and then distributed the payments to the Frosts in exchange for their stock. Thus, the settlement payments at issue were first made to, and then by, a financial institution. Id. Thus, the Eighth Circuit concludes that a literal reading of the statute indicates the passing of funds through an intermediary 546(e) entity is a transfer made by or to a financial institution. Id. In the decision below, the Second Circuit also erroneously rejects Munford and extends 546(e) to a
13 8 mere conduit. See In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc., 719 F.3d 94, (2d Cir. 2013). The court below holds the plain language of the statute, which refers to transfers made by or to (or for the benefit of) a financial institution, involves transfers that are either for the benefit of a fi nancial institution or to a fi nancial institution, but need not be both. The Second Circuit s reasoning fails for several reasons. First, the statute s plain language does not compel the interpretation advanced by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit correctly notes that the statute refers to transfers made by or to (or for the benefit of) a financial institution. Pet. App (citing 546(e)). However, it wrongly interprets the statute to read: by or to or for the benefit of a financial institution. See id. ( we conclude that a transfer may be either for the benefit of a financial institution or to a financial institution, but need not be both ). Although punctuation is not dispositive, there is no basis for disregarding the parentheses here. In fact, the parenthetical phrase, or for the benefit of, is more naturally read as illustrative; that is, further defining to as for the benefit of. Second, even assuming the Second Circuit correctly interprets the parenthetical language, that still does not support the court s holding that 546(e) reaches a mere conduit. The Second Circuit s interpretation captures transfers made by, to or for the benefit of a fi nancial institution. It still should not apply to transfers passing through an intermediary. Such transfers are not made to the intermediary; they are made through it to another person or entity.
14 9 Third, the Second Circuit s reading is inconsistent with the statute as a whole. As Petitioner notes, this Court has cautioned against reading statutory language in isolation. Pet. at 27 (citations omitted). However, the Second Circuit and, save one cursory reference, the other circuits rejecting Munford, fail to consider the Code provisions authorizing the bankruptcy trustee s avoidance powers cross referenced in the statute, as well as other relevant Code provisions, including 11 U.S.C. 550 and 547. See Pet. at 27. First, it is inconsistent with the role of 547(b) in discouraging a race to the courthouse to dismember the debtor during his slide into bankruptcy, see Pet. at 31 (citing Union Bank v. Wolas, 502 U.S. 151, 161 (1991), and in promoting equality of distribution among creditors of the debtor, see Pet. at 31. Additionally, as noted in Munford, 550 and the case law interpreting it requires that a transferee must have dominion or control over the property at issue, not simply custody of the property. Pet. at 21. Indeed, these 550 cases have enshrined the mere conduit defense to a fraudulent transfer. The interpretation of 546(e) is inconsistent with the mere conduit concept, as the existence of a financial institution in the transfer chain would not provide the trustee with an additional defendant to pursue but would provide all of the subsequent non-bank defendants with a complete defense under 546(e) - even if securities were not transferred. This inconsistency must be resolved by this Court. Accordingly, interpreting 546(e) in its appropriate context demonstrates that the provision does not reach transfers of funds through mere conduits The Second Circuit s conclusion that a contrary reading of the statute would render the parenthetical language superfluous lacks merit. Requiring a transferor or transferee to have a beneficial interest in the funds is not inconsistent with that language.
15 10 iii. The above represents a direct and important conflict regarding interpretation of the bankruptcy code As illustrated above, federal circuits addressing the Question Presented are in clear conflict. 3 That conflict has significant implications: had this case proceeded in the Eleventh Circuit rather than in the Second Circuit, Petitioner would have recovered millions in payments to otherwise relatively junior noteholders who colluded to receive substantial payments on the eve of bankruptcy. See Pet. at 11. Such result should not turn on where the bankruptcy petition happens to be filed. Id. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below in Section II, the conflict has a significant impact on a trustee s exercise of his or her avoidance powers to achieve equity among creditors. Accordingly, the direct circuit confl ict on this issue of federal importance warrants granting the Petition to provide uniformity in the application of 546(e) defenses under the Bankruptcy Code. The essential facts in the underlying case are not in dispute, therefore, this case presents a good opportunity for the Court to decide this critical issue. 3. Lower courts in circuits that have not addressed the issue are also in conflict. See Pet. Br. at 18, n.4.
16 11 II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE CASE RAISES AN IMPORTANT AND RECURRING QUESTION CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF TRUSTEES TO EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTER BANKRUPTCY CASES The Second Circuit s overbroad interpretation of 546(e), as well as the existing split among the federal circuits on this issue, has significant, unintended implications. First, it creates a lack of uniformity regarding the scope and application of a trustee s avoidance powers in performing critical administrative functions under the Bankruptcy Code. Second, those jurisdictions which follow the Second Circuit s reasoning unduly hamper a trustee s options. Under the Second Circuit s ruling, and in those jurisdictions that reject Munford, any payment through a financial institution would now have a 546(e) defense, notwithstanding that the financial institution did not have a beneficial interest in the transfer. The impact of that conclusion is far-reaching because a majority of transfers will involve some type of intermediary. The interpretation also fails to correctly consider the language and context of 546(e), including related provisions in the Code. This issue affects bankruptcy trustees in particular because debtors are unlikely to provide documentation regarding the transfer of cash and other non-traceable assets; accordingly, much of the avoidance action work of Bankruptcy Trustees is focused on transfers of funds through bank accounts as the account records are readily available. When the avoidance powers of trustees are curtailed in this manner it is the creditors of the debtor who suffer, as the purpose of the avoidance powers is to equalize the loss (within statutory parameters) between
17 12 the creditors so that a debtor may not preferentially or fraudulently mitigate the impact of bankruptcy on particular creditors. It is critical to the purpose and administration of the bankruptcy process that bankruptcy trustees maintain equality through use of their avoidance powers. In order to increase the pool of funds to distribute pro rata, and in the interest of equity, the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to recapture money which was preferentially, fraudulently, or otherwise voidably transferred. Section 546(e) limits that power for the specific purpose of minimizing the displacement caused in the commodities and securities markets in the event of a major bankruptcy affecting those industries. See App-11; see also Pet. at 25. It addresses the concern that if a firm is required to repay amounts received in settled securities transactions, it could have insufficient capital or liquidity to meet its current securities trading obligations, placing other market participants and securities markets at risk. App-11. Thus, 546(e) targets a specific concern. This purpose is not furthered by expanding the exemption to include intermediary financial institutions serving as mere pass-through entities for the disputed funds. As noted by the Petition, the Second Circuit s reading in effect immunizes from a trustee s avoidance power all non-cash transactions related to securities payments. Pet. at 25. Such is not the intent of 546(e). Congress created the Bankruptcy Code for the purpose of treating equally situated creditors equally. Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924). As this Court has previously noted: equality is equity, and that is one of the policy cornerstones underlying the Bankruptcy
18 13 Code. Id. at 13. Bankruptcy trustees are charged with preserving and promoting the system s integrity by, among other things, effectively administering their bankruptcy cases. This includes the prudent exercise of avoidance powers, which are critical to a trustee s administrative function. Congress did not intend to undo this principle of equality when it enacted, or amended 546(e). Accordingly, this Court should grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to resolve the circuit conflict bearing on this critical issue. Respectfully Submitted, PAUL STEVEN SINGERMAN Counsel of Record ILYSE M. HOMER ISAAC M. MARCUSHAMER LARA E. O DONNELL BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Ste Miami, FL singerman@bergersingerman.com Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Supreme Court Holds Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Does Not Apply To All Transfers Made Through Financial Institutions
Supreme Court Holds Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Does Not Apply To All Transfers Made Through Financial Institutions March 1, 2018 Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision
More informationA Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management Decision
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-757 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOMICK NELSON, PETITIONER v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Case: 12-54 Document: 001113832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Entry ID: 2173182 No. 12-054 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT In re LOUIS B. BULLARD, Debtor LOUIS B. BULLARD,
More informationLitigation Trustees Not Allowed to Wear Their Non-Bankruptcy Hats to Avoid Swap Transactions as Fraudulent Conveyances
2014 Volume VI No. 15 Litigation Trustees Not Allowed to Wear Their Non-Bankruptcy Hats to Avoid Swap Transactions as Fraudulent Conveyances Aura M. Gomez Lopez, J. D. Candidate 2015 Cite as: Litigation
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-27 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RICHARD L. BAUD AND MARLENE BAUD, Petitioners, v. KRISPEN S. CARROLL, Chapter 13 Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Eastern District of Michigan, Respondent.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. (202) 789-0096 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS... 1 I. OTHER
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-858 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; AND PRA RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT,
More information12 Pro Te: Solutio. edicare
12 Pro Te: Solutio edicare Medicare Secondary Payer Act TThe opportunity to resolve a lawsuit can present itself at almost any time during the course of personal injury litigation. A case may settle shortly
More informationBankruptcy Court Recognizes the Doctrine of Reverse Preemption
Bankruptcy Court Recognizes the Doctrine of Reverse Preemption Written by: Gilbert L. Hamberg Gilbert L. Hamberg, Esq.; Yardley, Pa. Ghamberg@verizon.net In In re Medical Care Management Co., 361 B.R.
More informationThe Decision. 1. The Facts
June 13, 2013 clearygottlieb.com Circuit Court Affirms Broad Reading of the Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbor for Transfers in Connection with a Securities Contract in In re Quebecor World (USA) Inc. A recent
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF QUEBECOR WORLD (USA) INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition
More informationFAQ s. What Do Unsecured Creditors Get from the Lender Litigation Settlement?
FAQ s What Happened in the Lyondell Bankruptcy Cases? The LyondellBasell enterprise was formed through a merger of Lyondell Chemical Company and its affiliates with Basell AF S.C.A. and its affiliates
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 17-1229 In the Supreme Court of the United States Helsinn Healthcare S.A., Petitioner, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals usa, inc., et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1408 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. QUALITY STORES, INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationCase Doc 2020 Filed 02/10/14 Entered 02/10/14 16:13:24 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8
Document Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) In re: ) ) EDISON MISSION ENERGY, et al., ) ) Case No. 12-49219 (JPC) Debtors. ) Chapter 11
More informationsmb Doc Filed 09/27/18 Entered 09/27/18 13:05:26 Main Document Pg 1 of 12
Pg 1 of 12 Baker & Hostetler LLP Hearing Date: October 31, 2018 45 Rockefeller Plaza Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. (EST) New York, New York 10111 Objections Due: October 23, 2018 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Objection
More information: : Plaintiff, : : Defendants. : : REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING DETERMINATION OF FOR VALUE AND NET EQUITY DECISION
Irving H. Picard v. Saul B. Katz et al Doc. 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x IRVING H. PICARD, Plaintiff, - against - SAUL B. KATZ, et
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
More informationAlert Memo. Background
Alert Memo AUGUST 11, 2011 Bankruptcy Court Holds That Safe Harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for Settlement Payments Protects Recipients of Repurchase Payments for Privately Placed Notes
More informationDoes a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate Funds as Return of Capital?
Michigan State University College of Law Digital Commons at Michigan State University College of Law Faculty Publications 1-1-2008 Does a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 09-329 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHASE BANK USA, N.A., PETITIONER v. JAMES A. MCCOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Debtors. Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; Polaroid Latin America I Corporation;
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: POLAROID CORPORATION, ET AL., Debtors. (includes: Polaroid Holding Company; Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; Polaroid Capital, LLC; Polaroid
More informationArticle. By Richard Painter, Douglas Dunham, and Ellen Quackenbos
Article [Ed. Note: The following is taken from the introduction of the upcoming article to be published in volume 20:1 of the Minnesota Journal of International Law] When Courts and Congress Don t Say
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
Case 08-10928-JKO Doc 3196 Filed 09/21/09 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov In re: ) Chapter 11 Cases ) Case No. 08-10928-JKO
More informationINDIVIDUAL CHAPTER 11: A HOW-TO
INDIVIDUAL CHAPTER 11: A HOW-TO Thomas Flynn and Steven Kinsella March 15, 2016 Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code ) has never been particularly well-suited to individual
More informationAlert. Fifth Circuit Orders Mandatory Subordination of Contractual Guaranty Claims. June 5, 2015
Alert Fifth Circuit Orders Mandatory Subordination of Contractual Guaranty Claims June 5, 2015 A creditor s guaranty claim arising from equity investments in a debtor s affiliate should be treated the
More informationEXPANDING FOREIGN CREDITORS TOOLKIT: THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION
EXPANDING FOREIGN CREDITORS TOOLKIT: THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION Craig R. Bergmann * I. INTRODUCTION... 84 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY... 84 III. THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIAL
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-631 In the Supreme Court of the United States ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, Petitioner v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08- Lower Tribunal No. 3D07-477 BEATRICE PERAZA, Appellant, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. On Review of a Decision of the Third District
More informationAlert. Lower Courts Wrestle with Debtors Tuition Payments. December 12, 2018
Alert Lower Courts Wrestle with Debtors Tuition Payments December 12, 2018 Two courts have added to the murky case law addressing a bankruptcy trustee s ability to recover a debtor s tuition payments for
More informationREPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
No. 11-492 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL N. KAY, P.C., v. Petitioner, DARWIN LESHER, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC DCA Case No. 2D WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. Case No. SC04-2003 DCA Case No. 2D03-286 WILMA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others
More informationUnited States Financial Assistance IBA Corporate and M&A Law Committee 2013
United States Financial Assistance IBA Corporate and M&A Law Committee 2013 Contact James M. Sullivan (Partner) Moses & Singer LLP jsullivan@mosessinger.com Contents Page INTRODUCTION 2 GENERAL OVERVIEW
More informationNo GARY L. FRANCE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 15-24 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GARY L. FRANCE, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CLIFTON CUNNINGHAM and DON TEED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, -against- Plaintiffs, FEDERAL EXPRESS
More informationA Significant Expansion Of Section 546 In Madoff Ruling
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Significant Expansion Of Section 546 In Madoff Ruling
More informationCase: /29/2013 ID: DktEntry: 74-2 Page: 1 of 11. PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom KOZINSKI, Chief Judge,
Case: 11-55452 08/29/2013 ID: 8761323 DktEntry: 74-2 Page: 1 of 11 FILED Danielson v. Flores (In re Flores), No. 11-55452 AUG 29 2013 PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom KOZINSKI, Chief Judge,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1199 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RAYMOND PFEIL, MICHAEL KAMMER, ANDREW GENOVA, RICHARD WILMOT, JR. AND DONALD SECEN (ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED), v.
More informationNo In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, EDWARD A. SHAY, et al., Petitioners, NEWMAN HOWARD, et al., Respondents.
No. 96-1580 In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1996 EDWARD A. SHAY, et al., Petitioners, v. NEWMAN HOWARD, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1417 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FEIN, SUCH, KAHN
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationAttorneys for Nortel Networks Inc.
Gary S. Lee (GL 6049) Karen Ostad (KO 5596) Dina Gielchinsky (DG 6054) LOVELLS 900 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel. (212) 909-0600 Fax: (212) 909-0666 Hearing Date: January 28, 2004,
More informationrdd Doc 162 Filed 05/12/14 Entered 05/12/14 18:17:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 9
Pg 1 of 9 David S. Heller Paul E. Harner Matthew L. Warren (appearing pro hac vice) LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1994 From the Bankruptcy Courts: When Money Mistakenly Paid to the Debtor Is Transferred
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 16-497 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MARTIN SMITH, v. Petitioner, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationTHE EFFECT OF THE 2005 BANKRUPTCY CODE AMENDMENTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURED TRANSACTIONS IN BUSINESS CASES
THE EFFECT OF THE 2005 BANKRUPTCY CODE AMENDMENTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURED TRANSACTIONS IN BUSINESS CASES Gabriel R. Safar and Edwin E. Smith Bingham McCutchen LLP November 8, 2005 The Bankruptcy Abuse
More informationNo IN THE DAVID S. GOULD, SHERIFF, CAYUGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL., PETITIONERS, CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.
AUG 2 7 2010 No. 10-206 IN THE DAVID S. GOULD, SHERIFF, CAYUGA COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL., PETITIONERS, CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket Nos CV-ASG, BKC-LM
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-15958 D.C. Docket Nos. 08-21730-CV-ASG, 07-01532 BKC-LM FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 18, 2009 THOMAS
More informationmg Doc Filed 02/13/17 Entered 02/13/17 20:23:37 Main Document Pg 1 of 23. Attorneys for the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust
Pg 1 of 23 Attorneys for the Motors Liquidation CompanyGUC Trust et al. et al. Pg 2 of 23 Attorneys for the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Pg 3 of 23 Pg 4 of 23 Pg 5 of 23 Pg 6 of 23 Motors Liquidation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI IN RE: ) ) NATHAN L. OSBORN and ) Case No. 06-41015 CATHERINE C. OSBORN, ) ) Debtors. ) ORDER SUSTAINING DEBTORS OBJECTION TO
More informationCredit Research Foundation Education Brief
Credit Research Foundation Education Brief Trade Credit Insurance as Protection from Bankruptcy Preference Risk: Negotiating for the Broadest Coverage By: Bruce S. Nathan, Esq., Mark Regenhardt and James
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-4339 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-720 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STEPHEN KIMBLE, ET AL., v. Petitioners, MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationIn Re: Downey Financial Corp
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-26-2015 In Re: Downey Financial Corp Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. LORAINE SUNDQUIST, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah
No. 13-852 IN THE FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. LORAINE SUNDQUIST, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. NEW YORK, NEW YORK, LLC DBA NEW YORK NEW YORK HOTEL & CASINO, Petitioner,
No. 12-451 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEW YORK, NEW YORK, LLC DBA NEW YORK NEW YORK HOTEL & CASINO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS,
More informationGifting & The Absolute Priority Rule. Brianna Walsh, J.D. Candidate 2016
Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule 2015 Volume VII No. 29 Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule Brianna Walsh, J.D. Candidate 2016 Cite as: Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule, 7 ST. JOHN S BANKR. RESEARCH
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-894 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States CASHCALL, INC. and J. PAUL REDDAM, in his capacity as President and CEO of CashCall,
More informationThe Right of Setoff- What Does a Banker Need to Know?
The Right of Setoff- What Does a Banker Need to Know? By Terri D. Thomas, JD tthomas@ksbankers.com Presented on February 10, 2016 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. CST The information contained in this material and
More informationFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012)
11-3209 Easterling v. Collecto, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 30, 2012) BERLINCIA EASTERLING, on behalf of herself
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, * v. * * No LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF * NORTH AMERICA, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. No. 11-20184 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al. Defendants-Appellees. MOTION OF THE SECRETARY
More informationBenjamin E. Gurstelle
Shareholder 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 p: 612.977.8722 f: 612.977.8650 bgurstelle@briggs.com Ben Gurstelle is a member of the Business Litigation and Financial Institutions
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-550 In the Supreme Court of the United States GLENN TIBBLE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. EDISON INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationKatharine B. Gresham (pro hac vice pending) Hearing Date: February 2, 2010
Katharine B. Gresham (pro hac vice pending) Hearing Date: February 2, 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20548 Telephone: (202) 551-5148
More informationMotors Liquidation Company GUC Trust
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of report (Date of earliest event
More informationNo In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12-3 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES --------------------------------------------------- JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON and JONATHAN M. ZANG Petitioners, v. FMR LLC, et al. Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Creates Vendor-Friendly Forum by Preserving Reclamation Rights in the Face of DIP Lenders Liens
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Creates Vendor-Friendly Forum by Preserving Reclamation Rights in the Face of DIP Lenders Liens 2017 Volume IX No. 12 Delaware Bankruptcy Court Creates Vendor-Friendly Forum by
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-550 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GLENN TIBBLE, ET
More informationCase Document 961 Filed in TXSB on 03/28/19 Page 1 of 15
Case 18-30197 Document 961 Filed in TXSB on 03/28/19 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: CHAPTER 11 LOCKWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 1 CASE NO.
More informationNarrowing the Scope of Auditor Duties
Narrowing the Scope of Auditor Duties David Margulies, J.D. Candidate 2010 The tort of deepening insolvency refers to an action asserted by a representative of a bankruptcy estate against directors, officers,
More informationMounzer Nasr for himself, and as authorized agent for his spouse, Beatriz Flecha de Lima
Pg 1 of 8 Hearing Date and Time: June 11, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) PAUL HASTINGS LLP Bryan R. Kaplan Park Avenue Tower 75 East 55th Street, First Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212.318.6339 Fax:
More informationWMI LIQUIDATING TRUST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ( FAQS ) (Please read carefully.)
Date Published 2/6/2019 WMI LIQUIDATING TRUST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ( FAQS ) (Please read carefully.) PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE FAQs PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF CERTAIN FEATURES OF WMI LIQUIDATING TRUST AND
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0911n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0911n.06 No. 14-5212 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT THOMAS EIFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILSON & MUIR BANK & TRUST CO.,
More informationCase rfn11 Doc 413 Filed 06/30/14 Entered 06/30/14 13:08:22 Page 1 of 7
Case 13-41498-rfn11 Doc 413 Filed 06/30/14 Entered 06/30/14 13:08:22 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION IN RE: HI-WAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY LLC,
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA DCA CASE NO.: 5D08-98
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CHARLENE M. BIFULCO CASE NO: SC09-172 DCA CASE NO.: 5D08-98 Petitioner, v. PATIENT BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Respondent. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
More informationSecond Circuit to Lenders: Get Your UCC Filings Right
February 5, 2015 Second Circuit to Lenders: Get Your UCC Filings Right By Geoffrey R. Peck and Jordan A. Wishnew 1 INTRODUCTION On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued
More informationFINAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION AND FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF THE OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS COMMITTEE OF WARNACO GROUP, INC. ET AL.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X : Chapter 11 In Re: : Warnaco Group, Inc. et al., : Case Nos. 01-41643
More informationmg Doc 5285 Filed 10/04/13 Entered 10/04/13 16:34:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 7
Pg 1 of 7 STORCH AMINI & MUNVES PC 2 Grand Central Tower, 25 th Floor 140 East 45 th Street New York, New York 10017 Tel. (212 490-4100 Noam M. Besdin, Esq. nbesdin@samlegal.com Counsel for Simona Robinson
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re ) Chapter 11 ) SP NEWSPRINT HOLDINGS LLC, et al., ) Case No. 11-13649 (CSS) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) Hearing Date: February
More informationOverview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations
Overview and Analysis of Select Provisions of the ABI Chapter 11 Reform Commission Final Report and Recommendations Part Two of Three By Orrick Restructuring Group Table of Contents Last month, Orrick
More informationCase 1:16-cv WGY Document 14 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:16-cv-10148-WGY Document 14 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN RE: JOHAN K. NILSEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-10148-WGY MASSACHUSETTS
More informationRosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-7-2009 Rosann Delso v. Trustees of Ret Plan Hourly Em Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationNo DD UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, Plaintiff/Appellee,
Case: 15-13400 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 14 No. 15-13400-DD UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JAMES HILDRETH, JR., in
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Appellant, Appellee,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ACORN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, v. Appellant, Case No. 09-cv-00996-JMR Judge James M. Rosenbaum UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellee, POLAROID CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION
BTXN222 10/16 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION In re: * Case No.: * Date: * * Chapter 13 Debtor(s) * Last 4 # SSN or TIN: DEBTOR S (S ) CHAPTER 13 PLAN
More informationNo: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. JOHN C. GORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant
Case: 06-17226 03/09/2009 Page: 1 of 21 DktEntry: 6838631 No: 06-17226 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN C. GORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON,
More informationENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
Case 14-42974-rfn13 Doc 45 Filed 01/08/15 Entered 01/08/15 15:22:05 Page 1 of 12 U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D06-3147 JESSICA LORENZO F/K/A JESSICA DIBBLE, ET AL.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00767-WSD Document 251 Filed 08/18/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL
More informationCase hdh11 Doc 223 Filed 12/26/17 Entered 12/26/17 15:19:42 Page 1 of 163
Case 17-33964-hdh11 Doc 223 Filed 12/26/17 Entered 12/26/17 15:19:42 Page 1 of 163 Gregory G. Hesse (Texas Bar No. 09549419) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75209 Telephone:
More informationCase Document 1492 Filed in TXSB on 01/18/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 10-60149 Document 1492 Filed in TXSB on 01/18/12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION IN RE: LACK S STORES, INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
More informationThe Effect Of Philly News On Credit Bidding
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6 th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 reprints@portfoliomedia.com The Effect Of Philly News On Credit Bidding Law360, New York (July 08,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 05-1275 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS FOUNDATION USA, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNION BANK OF SWITZERLAND, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
More informationmg Doc Filed 11/13/18 Entered 11/13/18 18:29:24 Main Document Pg 1 of 22
Pg 1 of 22 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor New York, NY 10036-2714 Tel: (212) 248-3140 Fax: (212) 248-3141 Kristin K. Going Marita S. Erbeck E-mail: kristin.going@dbr.com
More informationMICHAEL GEDDES and KARI GEDDES, individually and as parents and guardians of ANDREW GEDDES, a minor child, Petitioners,
No. 06-1458 ~,~[~ 2 ~ MICHAEL GEDDES and KARI GEDDES, individually and as parents and guardians of ANDREW GEDDES, a minor child, Petitioners, UNITED STAFFING ALLIANCE EMPLOYEE MEDICAL PLAN; U.S.A. UNITED
More informationNo IN THE. PATRICK MORRISEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 14-894 IN THE CASHCALL, INC., and J. PAUL REDDAM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CASHCALL, INC., v. Petitioners, PATRICK MORRISEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 15-2984 Domick Nelson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-2382 Document: 71 Filed: 08/08/2017 Page: 1 No. 15-2382 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,
More information