Racing to Res Judicata
When two or more lawsuits over the same set of facts are being resolved simultaneously in bankruptcy and state courts, figuring out who has jurisdiction over what can get tricky. Yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a decision untangling a dispute between business partners that stretched between three different courts, and in doing so provided a helpful roadmap for resolving such disputes in the future. Spivey v. King, No. E2011-01114-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)
By Dan Lins
Tags bankruptcy litigation, business litigation, jurisdiction
Comments 0
Round-Up: Stern v. Marshall
It’s been nearly two months since the Supreme Court released it’s “bombshell” decision in Stern v. Marshall, which held that bankruptcy courts may not issue final judgments for certain claims traditionally reserved for state or federal district courts. Although the scope of the decision’s impact is still being sorted out, here’s a round-up of recent commentary on the case:
SCOTUSblog’s very comprehensive coverage includes analysis, oral argument recap, merits and amicus briefs, and the opinion and briefs from below.
Our firm’s take, focusing on the impact of the case for litigators is here.
Businessweek notes that arguments over Stern are already hot and heavy in the Lehman Bros. bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy Beat highlights a recent ABI poll showing that 46% of respondents agree (and 46% disagree) with the Court’s decision.
Stern may also have an impact beyond the bankruptcy realm. Credit Slips focuses on how the decision might impact judicial deference to agency expertise.
Where Ignorance Truly Is Bliss: Failure to Disclose Potential Lawsuit in Bankruptcy Not a Bar to Future Suit
In the past year, I’ve blogged a few times about the consequences of failure to disclose assets and claims in a bankruptcy. See Be Prepared to Fully Disclose in Bankruptcy or Suffer the Consequences, November 17, 2010; Disclosure in Bankruptcy: When Too Little and Too Late Bar a Lawsuit, April 5, 2010.
Bankruptcy and Motions to Compel Arbitration
As a general proposition, federal courts have a clear preference for requiring arbitration if there is a basis in the underlying agreement. However, this general preference for arbitration is not nearly as pronounced in the bankruptcy context. This is seen in a recent case from Kentucky, Rust of Kentucky, Inc. v. TMS Contracting, LLC, et. al., 2010 WL 4510894 (Bankr. W.D. Ky., Nov. 10, 2010). In that case, the debtor, Rust of Kentucky, brought an adversary proceeding against TMS Contracting alleging a breach of a construction contract. TMS moved to compel arbitration and stay the adversary proceeding pursuant to terms of the contract at issue.
By Joe Kelly
Tags alternative dispute resolution, bankruptcy litigation
Comments 0
Older Entries