BRAUCHER & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW, MANCHESTER, NH, NORTH ANDOVER, MA
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Matthew R. Braucher
    • Martha L. Davidson
    • Christopher Jantzen
    • Fahelle Bonheur
    • Anna D’Avolio
    • Jess Mendes
  • Areas of Practice
    • Real Estate Law
    • Bankruptcy
    • Business Law
    • Default Services
    • Civil Litigation
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Legal News
    • Case Results
    • Articles

Innovative Thinking, Positive Results

Legal Briefs

3/17/2022

0 Comments

 
Miller v. Fallas (In re J&M Sales Inc.)
A claim held by the Internal Revenue Service that was paid after filing cannot be used as a predicate claim to extend the statute of limitations for 10 years, according to Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey of Delaware.
​

For reasons Judge Dorsey explained in a footnote at the end of his February 22 opinion, a ruling the other way would expand the statute of limitations to 10 years for all avoidance actions by a corporate debtor. Miller v. Fallas (In re J&M Sales Inc.), 20-50775 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 22, 2022).


West Wilmington Oil Field Claimants v. Nabors Corporate Services Inc. 
​
If a class has not been certified before bankruptcy, every member of the class should file an individual proof of claim before the bar date. That’s the practice point gleaned from a Fifth Circuit opinion on March 10.

If the class is so numerous that individual claims are not practicable, the opinion by Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement counsels the attorney for the class to file a motion in bankruptcy court for authority to file a class claim, followed by a motion in bankruptcy court to approve the class.
Why go to so much trouble? Easy answer: The bankruptcy court may not approve a class claim, and a court like the Fifth Circuit might not allow individual claims after the bar date.

West Wilmington Oil Field Claimants v. Nabors Corporate Services Inc. (In re CJ Holding Co.), 21-20394 (5th Cir. March 10, 2022).

Re Vrusho 12/03/2021 BNH 006
In re Vrusho, 2021 BNH 006 (denying creditor’s motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) for leave to file proof of claim after bar date based on insufficient notice, where: (i) creditor’s attorney in related state court collection proceeding received actual notice of commencement of case and claims bar date, (ii) sufficient nexus existed between attorney’s representation of creditor in state court proceeding and creditor’s proof of claim, (iii) creditor’s attorney informed creditor of bankruptcy case, and accordingly, (iv) actual notice of bankruptcy filing and bar date was imputed to creditor).

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Appraisal Fraud
    Bankruptcy
    Business Law
    CARES Act
    Closings
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    Dischargeability
    Foreclosure
    Fraud
    MA Cases
    NH Cases
    PPP Loan
    Radio Interviews
    Real Estate
    Seminars

    Archives

    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    July 2020
    April 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    October 2017
    August 2017
    October 2016
    April 2016
    June 2014
    March 2014
    November 2013
    April 2013
    May 2010

Picture
Picture
Picture

Home    About Us     Our Team     Areas of Practice     Legal News     Contact Us
© Copyright 2022 Braucher & Associates, PLLC  |  603-486-1530  |  978-702-3077
Picture
Website by Digital Media Design, Inc.
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Matthew R. Braucher
    • Martha L. Davidson
    • Christopher Jantzen
    • Fahelle Bonheur
    • Anna D’Avolio
    • Jess Mendes
  • Areas of Practice
    • Real Estate Law
    • Bankruptcy
    • Business Law
    • Default Services
    • Civil Litigation
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Legal News
    • Case Results
    • Articles