forgot your info?
   


Practitioner Beware: Bankruptcy Court Powers AGAIN Before US Supreme Court NOTE: Program POSTPONED to FEBRUARY 27

Thursday, February 13, 2014, 6:30 PM -- 8:00 PM
Member Price:     $35
Non-Member Attorney Price:     $55
Law Office Staff:     $15

Intended Audience:

Members of NYCLA's Bankruptcy Committee may attend for $15, Register above as "Law Office Staff"

Join NYCLA's Bankruptcy Committee and attend the program for $15

NOTE: The program takes place at Hughes Hubbard & Reed -- One Battery Park Plaza on FEBRUARY 27

Location: Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One Battery Park Plaza, NY, NY

Course ID: C02132014

Number of Sessions: 1program will focus

Credits: 1.5 NJ Credits: 1.5 General
1.5 NY Credits: 1.5 PP; Transitional and Non-transitional

Course Description:

 This program will focus on two cases on the Supreme Court docket this term.

In  Law v. Siegel,  the Bankruptcy Court imposed a “surcharge” on an individual debtor’s homestead exemption as punishment for fraudulent conduct.  The debtor’s invention of fake lien holders and forged documents led the trustee and his counsel on a merry chase, causing the estate to incur administrative expenses, which were paid (albeit only in part) by using the $75,000 permitted as a homestead exemption under California law.  The Supreme Court will decide whether  a Bankruptcy Court can use the catch-all provision of Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a) as a basis for such a surcharge, even though Section 522 provides that exempt property “is not liable for payment of any administrative expense.”   

Executive Benefits v. Arkison  raises an issue left unanswered in Stern v. Marshall: may parties validly consent to Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction  in cases where, absent consent, the principles established in Stern would require adjudication by an Article III court.  The Circuits are split, with the 5th, 6th and 7th Circuits holding that the jurisdictional defect identified in Stern v. Marshall cannot be waived or cured by consent of the parties, while the 9th Circuit holds that it can.  This is a critical question for Bankruptcy Courts and practitioners.  Ripple effects of the Court’s resolution may well extend beyond bankruptcy, with possible implications for use of magistrate judges, enforcement of arbitration awards and the adjudicatory functions of federal agencies.

Faculty:

Program Co-Sponsor: NYCLA's Bankruptcy Committee

Faculty: James P.  Pagano, Esq.; George Klidonas, Baker Hostetler;  David Wiltenburg, Hughes Hubbard & Reed

 

Back to Previous Page

 

 
You have 0 items
in your cart
 
     
an ICVM Group site.