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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 113

Court provides guidance for seeking damages arising from trades of distressed claims
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • August 13 2012

In Deephaven Distressed Opportunities Tradings, Ltd. v. 3V Capital Master Fund Ltd., Index No. 60061008 (Sup. Ct., NY County, Jun. 26, 2012), Judge Melvin L. Schweitzer denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on its damages claims


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


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


Fobian overruled
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2007

In Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 127 S. Ct. 199 (2007) ("Travelers"), the United States Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that had made pre-petition contractual provisions awarding attorneys' fees to the prevailing party unenforceable in bankruptcy to the extent the parties litigated issues peculiar to bankruptcy law


How Dodd-Frank impacts creditors of bankrupt banks
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2014

On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff-appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. V. Jacob J. Lew et


United States Supreme Court resolves circuit split
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • July 9 2008

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the meaning of the statutory phrase "under a plan confirmed under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy Code," as codified in 11 U.S.C. 1146(a


Homestead exemption does not apply to home owned by single shareholder corporation
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 23 2008

In this case, California Court of Appeal affirmed an order for sale of dwelling pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 704.740 (part of the state’s Enforcement of Judgments Law) finding the Coastal Commission's assignee of a $1,469,000 judgment lien had properly secured a valid assignment of the judgment and that the homestead exemption did not apply because the subject dwelling was not owned by a natural person


Actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void... sometimes
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 2 2008

In Burkhart v. Coleman, (In re Tippett) --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 4070690 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that an unauthorized post-petition sale of real property may be upheld where: 1) the bankruptcy trustee failed to record the bankruptcy petition with the county recorder; and 2) a bona fide purchaser thereafter bought and recorded title in the property


When are goods received for the purpose of asserting administrative priority status under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2010

A bankruptcy court recently held that in order for a supplier of goods on credit to establish an administrative claim under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) in the bankruptcy case of its buyer, the supplier will need to show that its buyer "physically" received the goods within 20 days prior to the buyer's bankruptcy filing, regardless of when title to the goods passed