We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 59

Court of Appeal reaffirms MERS' ability to foreclose, holds that recorded documents do not overcome a specifically pled violation of Section 2923.5

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

In Skov v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2102 WL 2549811 (June 8, 2012), the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision to sustain a demurrer against plaintiff Andrea Skov’s second amended complaint, holding that she had stated a claim for violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, which requires a lender to contact a defaulted borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before starting a nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a notice of default

Ninth Circuit rules that D&O policies' "insured versus insured" exclusion applies to debtors-in-possession and assignee creditors during bankruptcy proceedings

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 22 2009

In Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2009 WL 1976071 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the “insured versus insured” exclusion, common in directors’ and officers’ insurance policies (“D&O insurance”), to prevent a creditors’ trust from collecting on a D&O insurance policy under a claim assigned to it from a debtor-in-possession

Equitable subordination of a creditor's secured claim when such secured creditor is, itself, in bankruptcy

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2010

In a majority opinion dated December 15, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that a chapter 11 debtor may not equitably subordinate a creditor's claim and transfer the lien securing that claim, when such creditor is, itself, in bankruptcy, before first obtaining relief from the automatic stay under section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in such creditor's bankruptcy case

California Supreme Court resolves Court of Appeal split, holding that Section 2010 of the California Corporations Code -- California's "Survival Statute" -- does not apply to foreign corporations

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 27 2013

In Greb v. Diamond Int'l Corp., 2013 WL 628328 (Cal. Feb. 21, 2013), the California Supreme Court unequivocally and unanimously laid to rest the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable for employees' unpaid wages

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held on July 27, 2009 in Boucher v. Shaw that individual managers of a bankrupt corporation can be held liable to the corporation's former employees for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"

Lenders beware -- Fifth Circuit has lowered the bar for cramdown plan confirmation

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Western Real Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir. 2013), the court held

Canonized credit-bidding: the Supreme Court unanimously affirms secured creditor's right to credit-bid at free and clear sale in plan

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2012

On May 29, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that a debtor could not confirm a plan over a secured creditor’s objection if the plan provided for the sale of the secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens, but did not provide the secured creditor with the option of credit-bidding at the sale

Second Circuit holds that most important factor in assessing pre-plan settlement distribution under Rule 9019 is whether it complies with the absolute priority rule

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 27 2007

On March 7, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that "in the Chapter 11 context, whether a pre-plan settlement's distribution plan complies with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme will be the most important factor for a Bankruptcy Court to Consider in approving a settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019."

The Ninth Circuit rules on plan feasibility

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2007

In the case of Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), the Ninth Circuit decided that in determining the feasibility of a plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(a)(11), a court must evaluate the possible impact of pending litigation, whether at the trial level or on appeal

Equityholder's strategy for shifting tax burdens to creditors upheld by Third Circuit

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 12 2013

In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC, F.3d 736 (3rd Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit broke from other courts by holding that