Categories
Tags
-
Recent Posts
- Court Finds Investment Advisor’s Payments to Customers Are Not Exempt From Avoidance Under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code
- Vitro Update: “Savings Clause” Fails to Save Vitro Subsidiaries From Involuntary Bankruptcy
- SDNY Denies Payment of Administrative Expense Claim by Relying on the Operative Document as a Whole and Rejecting a Statutory Rule of Construction
- Gaming Alert – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Conditionally Supports Online Gambling – Boyd Gaming and Caesars Stocks Rally as a Result
- In re Hostess Brands, Inc.: Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Send Cash Collateral Dispute to Arbitration
Archives
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Coudert Brothers Trust v. Baker & McKenzie, et al., No. 11-2785, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110425 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2011)
In Coudert Brothers, the Southern District of New York considered whether the parties impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s entry of a final order determining non-core claims it otherwise lacked constitutional authority to adjudicate under Stern v. Marshall.[i] Because the parties did not consent, the district court treated the bankruptcy court’s opinion as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the district court would review de novo. Continue reading
Posted in Stern v. Marshall Updates
Tagged Coudert Brothers, Marshall, Southern District, Stern, Supreme Court
Development Specialists, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, No. 11 Civ 5994, 2011 WL 5244463 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 2, 2011)
The plan administrator for the estate of Coudert Brothers, LLP filed with the bankruptcy court thirteen separate adversary proceedings against ten law firms alleging that the law firms were liable to Coudert for “unfinished business” that several of Coudert’s former partners took with them to their new firms. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Stern v. Marshall, the law firms moved the Southern District of New York to withdraw the bankruptcy reference and abstain from hearing the claims in favor of New York state courts or review the merits of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the firms’ motion to dismiss de novo. The court granted the motion to withdraw the reference, but denied the motion to abstain. Continue reading
Posted in Stern v. Marshall Updates
Tagged Coudert Brothers, Marshall, Southern District, Stern, Supreme Court

