Equitable Tolling Can Extend Statutes of Limitations Under Section 546(a)
Dilatory actions by a debtor tolled statutes of limitations for a trustee’s suit against a third party.
Congress Must Act to Permit Chapter 7 Debtors to Pay Counsel After Filing
Bifurcated fee arrangements are cumbersome, temporary fixes for a problem that the Supreme Court created in Lamie.
Lawyer Must Disclose a Client’s Misconduct, Even When It’s ‘Uncomfortable’
Lawyers aren’t guarantors for a client’s misconduct, but they may be sanctioned for a coverup.
A Settlement Term Sheet Signed After Mediation Was an Enforceable Contract
The state law standards for creation of a contract governed enforceability of a term sheet signed after mediation.
Lack of Creditor Opposition Isn’t Grounds for Extending an Expiring Automatic Stay
A repeat filer in chapter 13 must show ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of improved financial condition to warrant an extension of the automatic stay under Section 362(c)(3)(B), Chief Judge Taddonio says.
Disagreement on Bankruptcy Court’s Jurisdiction to Give ‘Innocent Spouse’ Relief
Bankruptcy Judges Marvin Isgur and Gregory Taddonio disagree on whether the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant ‘innocent spouse’ relief to a debtor.
A Receiver May File a Chapter 9 Petition over City Officials’ Objections
The requirement in chapter 9 to negotiate in good faith before filing is satisfied if the parties are ‘simply too far apart,’ says Bankruptcy Judge Chan.
Dismissal Isn’t Mandatory if a New Filing Is Within 180 Days of a Voluntary Dismissal
Courts are split on whether Section 109(g)(2) mandates dismissal whenever an individual or family farmer refiles within 180 days, regardless of whether a lift-stay motion prompted dismissal of the first case.
A Two-Year Delay in Filing a Retention Application Resulted in Denial of Fees
Pittsburgh Bankruptcy Judge Gregory Taddonio says that lawyers must search in PACER before signing up a new client.
Owner of a Long-Defunct Business Didn’t Qualify for Subchapter V
Being an ordinary employee didn’t mean that the debtor was engaged in business to qualify for Subchapter V.