Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bankruptcy (2)
- Assets (1)
- Business entities (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Compustat (1)
-
- Creditors (1)
- Damages (1)
- Debt (1)
- Debt collection (1)
- Debtors (1)
- Derivative claim (1)
- Economic theory (1)
- Empirical studies (1)
- Fraudulent transfer (1)
- Garnishment (1)
- Good faith donee (1)
- Good faith purchase (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Judgments (1)
- Liability (1)
- Mass torts (1)
- Purdue Pharma (1)
- Sackler (1)
- Secured debt (1)
- Third party claims (1)
- Torts (1)
- Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Bankruptcy Law
Third-Party Releases Under The Bankruptcy Code After Purdue Pharma, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson
Third-Party Releases Under The Bankruptcy Code After Purdue Pharma, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson
Articles
The biggest bankruptcy case ever (as measured by unsecured claims against a debtor-in-possession) is In re Purdue Pharma, LLC. The bankruptcy court affirmed a plan discharging the Sackler family (equity owners and often officers of Purdue) of all “derivative” claims that belonged to the debtor-in-possession. The settlement was bought for a substantial sum payable over time by the Sacklers. A debtor-in-possession is the sole owner of a derivative claim and has the power to bind all the creditors to a settlement. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a plan discharging derivative claims is confirmable. In fact, as we will, show, a great …
Fraudulent Transfers: Void And Voidable, David G. Carlson
Fraudulent Transfers: Void And Voidable, David G. Carlson
Articles
This Article explores the civil procedure attendant to private fraudulent transfer litigation (primarily outside the context of bankruptcy). In such litigation, courts ponder whether fraudulent transfers are void or voidable. In fact, they are both simultaneously! According to the theory "at law," a fraudulent transfer is "void." That is, a creditor with a judgment could simply levy the property from a fraudulent grantee as if the grantee had no property rights. This Article questions the constitutional viability of this ancient attitude. Meanwhile, "equity" viewed the transfer as voidable. The grantee gets title, but the title might be set aside. The …
Giving Back A Fraudulent Transfer: A Defense To Liability?, David G. Carlson
Giving Back A Fraudulent Transfer: A Defense To Liability?, David G. Carlson
Articles
In Whitlock v. Lowe (In re Deberry) (5th Cir. 2019), the Fifth Circuit court of appeals found it obvious that if a transferee gives back fraudulently transferred funds (which the debtor then dissipates), the transferee has a complete defense to liability to the transferor’s bankruptcy trustee. This puts the Fifth Circuit at odds with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, where the prepetition give-back counted as no defense. This article concludes that a more nuanced position should mediate between these extremes, based on an “innocent donee” defense retrieved from Nineteenth Century precedent. The article emphasizes that if bad faith transferees for …
Critique Of Money Judgment Part Three: Restraining Notices, David G. Carlson
Critique Of Money Judgment Part Three: Restraining Notices, David G. Carlson
Articles
New York is virtually unique in permitting lawyers to issue court orders restraining debtors and third parties from conveying away any assets that could be used to satisfy a money judgment. In effect, these orders command the recipient to do nothing, whereas a turnover or garnishment orders the recipient to do something — pay the creditor or sheriff or surrender illiquid property to the sheriff. The weakness and strength of this debt collection tool is assessed at length. The Article also analyzes in detail New York’s Exempt Income Protection Act, enacted in 2008 to force banks to protect the exempt …
Corporate Judgement Proofing: A Response To Lynn Lopucki's 'The Death Of Liability', James J. White
Corporate Judgement Proofing: A Response To Lynn Lopucki's 'The Death Of Liability', James J. White
Articles
In "The Death of Liability" Professor Lynn M. LoPucki argues that American businesses are rendering themselves judgment proof.- Using the metaphor of a poker game, Professor LoPucki claims American businesses are increasingly able to participate in the poker game without putting "chips in the pot." He argues that it has become easier for American companies to play the game without having chips in the pot because of the ease with which a modern debtor can grant secured credit, because of the growth of the peculiar form of sale known as asset securitization, because foreign havens for secreting assets are now …