COVERAGE
Bankruptcy LL.M. Alumni Thrive as Judicial Law Clerks and Practitioners
Spring 2021
Read time: 2 min
Kristin Going and Jennifer Schein are featured in this article from the St. John’s Law Magazine.
COVERAGE
Spring 2021
Read time: 2 min
Kristin Going and Jennifer Schein are featured in this article from the St. John’s Law Magazine.
COVERAGE
April 5, 2021
Read time: 2 min

COVERAGE
March 2021
Read time: 2 min
In recent years, Delaware courts have issued several choice of law rulings applying Delaware law to insurance disputes involving directors and officers of companies that were incorporated in Delaware even where other factors, like the location of company headquarters or the place of policy negotiation, suggest that the company had more significant contacts in a different state. In this article, of counsel Howard Epstein and special counsel Ted Keyes discuss two recent decisions that demonstrate that Delaware courts are increasingly leaning towards the insured’s position in D&O insurance coverage disputes.
COVERAGE
April 20, 2021
Read time: 2 min
Daniel Simon and Natalie Rowles authored this Law360 article.
COVERAGE
April 2, 2021
Read time: 2 min
COVERAGE
April 2, 2021
Read time: 2 min

COVERAGE
April 2021
Read time: 2 min
The debtors’ legal malpractice claim was “not property of their bankruptcy estate,” held a split Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2020. In re Glaser, 816 Fed. Appx. 103, 104 (9th Cir. June 30, 2020) (2-1). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota one week later affirmed a bankruptcy court judgment that “the [debtor’s] estate was the proper owner” of such a claim. In re Bruess, 2020 WL3642324, 1 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020). Most recently, the Sixth Circuit held that the debtors’ malpractice claim was their property “and not the bankruptcy estate.” In re Blasingame, 2021 WL 245300, 1 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021). In this article, of counsel Michael Cook discusses the bankruptcy court’s decision and its relevance to creditors in business cases.

COVERAGE
February 2021
Read time: 2 min
A secured lender’s “mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy– repossession] does not violate” the automatic stay provision [§362(a) (3)] of the Bankruptcy Code, held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, 4 ( Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved “a split” in the Circuits. Id. at 2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit. In this article, of counsel Michael Cook discusses the Court’s decision in Fulton and its analysis of §362(a)(3) of the Code.

COVERAGE
Read time: 2 min
COVERAGE
April 1, 2021
Read time: 2 min