Publications

MORE →

Case Analysis: Blixseth v. Brown (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), 841 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2016), Ninth Circuit Decision Extending Barton Doctrine to Committees, Bankruptcy E-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal. State Bar (June 13, 2017).

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee,the following is a case update analyzing a recent case of interest: Summary In Blixseth v. Brown (In re Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC), 841 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether members of unsecured creditors’ committees can be sued outside of the bankruptcy court without bankruptcy court authority. The court determined that the Barton doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), which prevents suit against a trustee or receiver without the authorization of the appointing court, also applies to claims against a committee member relating to his or her conduct as a committee member. To read the full decision, click here: http://bit.ly/2jxLX7o. Facts Timothy Blixseth was the founder and principal, together with his wife, Edra, of Yellowstone Mountain Club, a luxury Montana resort. Stephen Brown represented Blixseth at the time Blixseth borrowed $375,000,000...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Revisions to the Federal Rules of Appellate, Civil, and Bankruptcy Procedure Effective December 1, 2016, Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec. Cal. State Bar (Nov. 30, 2016)

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee: In April 2016, the Supreme Court submitted to Congress proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”).  The proposed revisions will go in effect on December 1, 2016, unless Congress rejects or defers the proposed amendments. The entire package of materials transmitted to Congress may be accessed here: http://bit.ly/2fms8Kk.  Some of the proposed revisions are described below. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(f) – Elimination of the 3-day rule when papers are served by electronic means Current FRBP 9006(f) provides that when a party may or must act within a prescribed period after being served “and that service is by mail or under [FRCP] 5(b)(2)(D), (E), or (F),” 3 days are added to the period.  FRCP 5(b)(2)(E) allows for service of papers by electronic means.  Therefore, under the current...

READ MORE →
MORE →

Case Analysis: United States v. Martin (In re Martin), 542 B.R. 479 (9th Cir. BAP 2015), and Smith v. IRS (In re Smith), 828 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2016), Insolvency e-Bulletin, Insol. L. Comm., Bus. L. Sec., Cal. State Bar (October 26, 2016)

SUMMARY Last December, in United States v. Martin (In re Martin), 542 B.R. 479 (9th Cir. BAP 2015), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected recent circuit court decisions holding that an untimely Form 1040 is not, by definition, a “return” for purposes of determining whether a tax debt is dischargeable.  The BAP instead ruled that a court must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the purported return was “an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law.”  To read the full published decision, click here:  http://1.usa.gov/1JziPUx. When the BAP issued its ruling in December, this issue was already pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 13, 2016, in Smith v. IRS (In re Smith), 828 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016), the Ninth Circuit declined to rule on the question of whether an untimely Form 1040 filed...

READ MORE →