If you are having trouble navigating through the newsletter, the online version can be found here:
http://www.cllabankruptcy.org/bankruptcy/july2004.cfm

Bankruptcy Section Poll

The Legislative Committee would like your assistance in assessing if there is a need for national rules to govern National First Day Orders. Please take a moment to answer a three-question poll. At the end of the poll, you will be returned to the newsletter. Click here.

Sua Sponte

Alan I. Nahmias
 Encino, CA
anahmias@prnlaw.com

As I assume the position of Chair of the Bankruptcy Section, I feel compelled to thank those who preceded me in this position, especially the outgoing Chair, Lou Robin, for handing over the reins of what I believe to be a rejuvenated Section, whose name and reputation continue to be synonymous nationally with both excellence and prestige.

read more...

Case Analysis

Erven T. Nelson
Adam P. Bowler
 Las Vegas, Nevada
enelson@alversontaylor.com

Payment Issued to Replace Dishonored Check is Avoidable Preference

Summary: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Endo Steel, Inc. v. Janas (In re JWJ Contracting Co., Inc.), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11590 (9th Cir. June 14, 2004), held that a payment to a creditor to replace a dishonored check was an avoidable preferential transfer, even though the original transaction involving the NSF check, which occurred 19 days prior, may not have constituted an avoidable preference, falling under the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense.

read more...

Case Law Update

Catherine E. Vance
Development Specialists, Inc.
Dublin, Ohio
Email: cvance@dsi.biz

Avoidance of Post-petition Transfer

Action to avoid improper post-petition payments to secured lender was pointless even though made in apparent violation of the automatic stay. The creditor’s post-avoidance claim under § 502(h) would take on the characteristics of its pre-petition claim, which, in this case, was fully secured. Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Gray (In re Bankvest Capital Corp.), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14253 (1st Cir. July 12, 2004).

read more...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sua Sponte

As I assume the position of Chair of the Bankruptcy Section, I feel compelled to thank those who preceded me in this position, especially the outgoing Chair, Lou Robin, for handing over the reins of what I believe to be a rejuvenated Section, whose name and reputation continue to be synonymous nationally with both excellence and prestige. During Lou’s tenure, educational programming, thanks in large part to the efforts of our education co-chairs, Alan Gordon and Cathy Pike, continued to garner outstanding praise and respect. Additionally, thanks to sponsors such as The Garden City Group, the Commercial Law League will, on October 11th, just weeks before the November presidential election, be presenting as timely a speaker as it ever has at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges breakfast, James Carville. Mr. Carville’s reputation precedes him, and each of you reading this and planning on attending the NCBJ breakfast should be sure to purchase your tickets early, as the event is certain to be a sell out.

I believe it is also appropriate in this first Sua Sponte column to acknowledge the assistance of numerous others critical to the ongoing success of our Section, including past Chairs Jay Welford and Judith Greenstone Miller, each of whose influence and presence continue to serve as a guiding force. Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of the Legislative Committee, chaired by Peter Califano, which have been superb.

I believe that through the hard work of Peter and David Goch, the Section remains at the forefront of the national debate over bankruptcy reform and I know of no other organization whose voice is as respected as is that of the League and our Section. It is my hope and belief that the high esteem in which our Section is held will not only carry forward, but increase over the next year.

During the next twelve months, I would like to focus my energies as Chair of the Bankruptcy Section on further broadening our Section’s presence on a national level through not only the continued presentation of outstanding educational programs, but also through the growth of our Section’s membership. Through this, increased business opportunities as well as opportunities for networking will present themselves, which will benefit all of us.

As my family and I prepared to head to Newport, Rhode Island for the League’s annual summer convention, I was repeatedly reminded of not only the business contacts I have made over my fifteen years as a member of the CLLA, but of the marvelous friendships my wife, Traci, and I have established with numerous League members nationwide. Undoubtedly, if you’re reading this column and have been a member of the League for any period of time, you’ll agree.

Each of you is well respected within your region, and I can only presume that you associate with other well-respected members of your community on both a regional and even national basis. If you, as fellow members, would each reach out to one or two of these individuals that you know or are acquainted with to join the League and our Section, I am certain that within a very short period of time these people will owe you a debt of gratitude for introducing them to the League. In turn, through this increase in membership, your practice, our Section, and the League as a whole will thrive. All are desirable results, and all are attainable with your help.

I would like to reach out to not only the members of the Executive Council and various Section Committee Chairs, but all persons reading this column to join me in accomplishing these goals, none of which can be accomplished by any one person. Should anyone wish to get involved on any of our numerous committees, Legislative, Newsletter, NCBJ, Education, Membership, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Nominating, Long Range Planning or King Award, please call or email me.

I look forward to the challenges the next year will present and to working, not only with those of you whom I already know, but also with those of you with whom I hope to become acquainted shortly. Let’s keep up the momentum that’s been created and continue to move our Section and the League down the path so well paved by my predecessors.

Alan I. Nahmias
Plotkin, Rapoport & Nahmias
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800,
Encino, CA 91436-1836
Phone: 818-995-2555
Fax: 818-907-9261

Email: anahmias@prnlaw.com
Web site: www.prnlaw.com

back to top ^

Case Analysis

Payment Issued to Replace Dishonored Check is Avoidable Preference

Summary: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Endo Steel, Inc. v. Janas (In re JWJ Contracting Co., Inc.), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11590 (9th Cir. June 14, 2004), held that a payment to a creditor to replace a dishonored check was an avoidable preferential transfer, even though the original transaction involving the NSF check, which occurred 19 days prior, may not have constituted an avoidable preference, falling under the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense. The court found that although the creditor’s release of lien may have constituted new value for the NSF check, the cashier’s check delivered 19 days later was a payment on what had become an unsecured debt; the cashier’s check did not relate back to the value given 19 days prior for what turned out to be a worthless check.

Facts: JWJ Contracting Co., Inc., the debtor in this case, contracted with the city of Phoenix to make improvements to runways at the Sky Harbor International Airport. At the time, JWJ was involved in various road construction projects with different city and state agencies. On July 1, 1994, before construction of the runway project was completed, JWJ filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Arizona. The case was subsequently converted to one under Chapter 7 and Joseph Janas, the Appellant in this case, was appointed as trustee.

“Public improvement projects in Arizona are subject to Arizona Revised Statutes § 34-222, known as the ‘Little Miller Act’ because it is based on the federal Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § § 270a-270d…As required by the Little Miller Act, JWJ provided a performance and payment bond to guarantee completion of the project and payment of suppliers of labor and materials.” JWJ, 2004 U.S. App LEXIS 11590 at *2-3 (citations omitted). In compliance with the Little Miller Act, JWJ purchased a payment and performance bond from Continental Insurance Company.

JWJ contracted with various subcontractors on the runway project, including Endo Steel, Inc., and Marco Crane & Rigging Company. Endo was contracted to supply and install all of the steel reinforcing bars required for the project and Marco was contracted to lease and operate equipment. After Endo and Marco had performed considerable work under their contracts, JWJ began to experience financial difficulties and started to fall behind on its payments to subcontractors. Endo and Marco threatened to demand payment from Continental under the bond. In response to their demands, JWJ issued a check to Marco on April 12, 1994 in the amount of $37,030.52, and on April 14, 1994, JWJ issued a check to Endo in the amount of $194,286.71. Upon receipt of the checks, Endo and Marco executed lien releases that waived their rights to payment under the bond. The Marco check was paid but the Endo check was dishonored by JWJ’s bank and was returned to Endo NSF. In response, Endo refused to return to work on the runway project until the check was replaced by a cashier’s check. On May 2, 1994, 19 days after the delivery of the NSF check and issuance of the release, a cashier’s check was delivered to Endo in the amount of $194,286.71. Id. at *3.

On February 3, 1997, the trustee filed a preference action against various subcontractors for payments made in the 90-day period preceding the petition date. The trustee alleged that both the Endo and Marco payments were preferential transfers and thus avoidable by the estate under § 547. Endo and Marco filed separate motions for summary judgment in the adversary proceeding, asserting §547(c)(1) defenses to the avoidance action, claiming that they had both given a contemporaneous exchange for new value for the payments when they released their liens against Continental on the bond. The trustee responded by filing cross motions for summary judgment, contending that a contemporaneous exchange for new value defense was not available to either defendant.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of Endo and Marco on their motions for summary judgment, finding that the lien releases constituted new value in both cases. The trustee then filed a motion for reconsideration of the Endo judgment which was denied by order of the Bankruptcy Court. The trustee timely appealed the Endo and Marco judgments and the Endo reconsideration order to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit BAP reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held that “the bankruptcy court erred in granting the Endo motion because Endo released its claim against [the bond] prior to receiving the cashier’s check, and the cashier’s check was not exchanged for new value.” Janas v. Marco Crane & Rigging Co. (In re: JWJ Contracting Inc.), 287 B.R. 501, 514-515 (9th Cir. BAP 2002). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed and remanded the Marco decision on other grounds; however, it found that the Marco release did constitute new value to the extent that the surety on the bond was secured. The Endo decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Discussion: The Ninth Circuit began its discussion by pointing out the purpose behind the preference avoidance power of the Bankruptcy Code, stating “[t]he purpose of the trustee’s avoidance power is to ‘discourage creditors from racing to the courthouse to dismember the debtor during its slide into bankruptcy and to further the prime bankruptcy policy of equal distribution among similarly situated creditors.’” JWJ, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11590 at *4 (quoting Danning v. Bozek (In Re Bullion Reserve of N. Am.), 836 F.2d 1214, 1217 (9th Cir. 1988)). The court then explained the rationale behind the contemporaneous exchange for new value exception to the preference avoidance power, stating “[t]he rationale for the exception is that, because new value is given, a contemporaneous exchange does not diminish the debtor’s estate.” Id. (quoting Milchem, Inc., Fredman (In re Nucorp Energy, Inc.), 902 F.2d 729, 733 (9th Cir. 1990)).

The Ninth Circuit then turned to an examination of new value. Bankruptcy Code § 547(c)(1) provides that an otherwise avoidable preferential transfer may not be avoided “to the extent that such transfer was (A) intended by the debtor and the creditor to or for whose benefit such transfer was made to be a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor; and (B) in fact a substantially contemporaneous exchange.” The Ninth Circuit had previously held in O’Rouke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fergert, Inc.), 887 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1989), that “the release by a subcontractor of its claim against a surety constituted new value for the debtor’s estate for purposes of § 547(c)(1).” JWJ, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11590 at *5.

It is the Fergert standard upon which the Bankruptcy Court initially relied in granting summary judgment in favor of Endo and Marco. However, the Ninth Circuit found that this case is distinguishable form Fergert. “Here, the NSF check, which was exchanged simultaneously for a release of Endo’s bond claim, was dishonored and replaced by the cashier’s check. This factual difference, as the BAP concluded, changed the nature of the transaction from one intended for a contemporaneous cash exchange to a credit transaction.” Id. at *5-6 (citations omitted). Although not mentioned in the Ninth Circuit’s decision, but implicit in both the BAP and Ninth Circuit decisions, the Marco payment did not convert into a credit transaction because the Marco check was honored upon presentment. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that the Fourth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit had come to similar conclusions, holding that payments made to replace dishonored checks were avoidable preferences. See Morrison v. Champion Credit Corp. (In re Barefoot), 952 F.2d 795, 797 (4th Cir. 1991); Goger v. Cudahy Foods Co. (In re Standard Food Services, Inc.), 723 F.2d 820, 821 (11th Cir. 1984).

Endo argued “that its release, although issued on April 14, became effective only upon payment; therefore, it gave ‘new value’ to JWJ on May 2, contemporaneously with its receipt of the cashier’s check.” Id. at *7. In response to this argument, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that the release signed by Endo “was unconditional; its viability was not dependant on receipt of payment.” Id. The lien release executed by Endo stated, in large uppercase print, “This document waives rights unconditionally and states that you have been paid for giving up those rights. This document is enforceable against you if you sign it, even if you have not been paid. If you have not been paid, use a conditional release form.” Id. at *8.

The Ninth Circuit concluded “that Endo’s unconditional release given on April 14, albeit in exchange for what turned out to be an NSF check, resulted in a credit transaction. JWJ’s unsecured debt to Endo arising from that transaction was extinguished by delivery of the cashier’s check on May 2. Thus, the April 14 release and the May 2 payment were not contemporaneous.” Id. at 9-10. The decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel was affirmed.

Comments: This case should serve as a strong warning to creditors who receive payments in exchange for lien rights that all releases should be conditioned upon the actual receipt of payment. It also further supports the notion that a bankruptcy trustee (or debtor-in-possession or unsecured creditors’ committee, as the case may be), should consider attacking as preferential transfers any payments made during the pre-petition preference period.

Erven T. Nelson
Adam P. Bowler
Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen, Nelson & Sanders
7401 W. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Phone: 702-384-7000
Fax: 702-385-7000

enelson@alversontaylor.com
www.alversontaylor.com

back to top ^

Case Law Update

Avoidance of Post-petition Transfer
Action to avoid improper post-petition payments to secured lender was pointless even though made in apparent violation of the automatic stay. The creditor’s post-avoidance claim under § 502(h) would take on the characteristics of its pre-petition claim, which, in this case, was fully secured. Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Gray (In re Bankvest Capital Corp.), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14253 (1st Cir. July 12, 2004).

Professional Compensation
Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing compensation to the Chapter 7 trustee’s attorney. Reduction in interim compensation awarded under § 331 does not require a showing of fraud or other misconduct. Disallowing a portion of the requested fees was appropriate where counsel “exercised poor judgment” in pursuing an action that, at best, would have produced a modest benefit, with any recovery shared not among creditors generally, but by two priority creditors, one of which held a nondischargeable claim against the debtor. Leichty v. Strand (In re Strand), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14176 (9th Cir. July 9, 2004).

ERISA Fiduciary and Nondischargeability
Disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Hemmeter, 242 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court held that an ERISA fiduciary is not ipso facto a “fiduciary” for purposes of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4). Rather, the Bankruptcy Court must examine the debtor’s relationship with the property alleged to be defalcated to determine whether the debt should be discharged. Hunter v. Philpot, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13609 (8th Cir. July 1, 2004).

Property of the Estate
Debtor’s malpractice claim against an attorney did not arise until state court action had concluded, which did not occur pre-petition. Therefore, the malpractice claim was not sufficiently rooted in the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy past and was not property of the bankruptcy estate. Witko v. Menotte (In re Witko), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12867 (11th Cir. June 25, 2004).

Post-confirmation “Related to” Jurisdiction
The Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction over a post-confirmation litigation trustee’s malpractice suit against an accounting firm. The suit involved “ordinary” professional negligence and breach of contract claims arising under state law; thus, it would not affect the estate, and any effect on the debtor would be incidental. The suit would also not interfere with implementation of the plan. Creditors, the beneficiaries of the suit, no longer had a nexus to the bankruptcy plan or proceeding because they exchanged their creditor status for rights in the litigation trust. Binder v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (In re Resorts Int’l, Inc.), 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12252 (3d Cir. June 22, 2004).

Personal Injury Suit Barred by Judicial Estoppel
Judicial estoppel bars debtors’ pursuit of personal injury claim where they failed to disclose the suit in their bankruptcy schedules, which was, according to the Court, tantamount to a representation that no such claim existed. That the trustee failed to investigate the claim after debtors disclosed it at their § 341 meeting was irrelevant; a trustee’s failure to act does not excuse a debtor’s dishonesty. Superior Crewboats, Inc. v. Primary P&I Underwriters, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 12120 (5th Cir. June 18, 2004).

Seventh Circuit Judge Warns Against Using Motions as “Self-help Extensions”
In a nonbankruptcy case, Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals warned: “Filing motions in lieu of briefs, a form of self-help extension, has become increasingly common but is not authorized by any rule, either national or local. . . [T]he problem lies in the belief that any motion automatically defers the deadline for filing the brief. A brief must be tendered when due. If a party needs more time, a request for an extension must be filed in advance of the due date. If extra time has not been granted in advance, then the litigant must file its brief as scheduled. All too many motions this court has seen have the subtext: “Oops! My brief is due today but is not ready. It is too late to seek an extension, and I don’t have any good reason for one anyway. So I’ll whip up a short motion. Whew!” No go. If events justify a last-minute motion concerning jurisdiction, venue, sanctions, or any other subject, then that motion may accompany the brief; a motion is not a substitute for a brief.” Ramos v. Ashcroft, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11692 (7th Cir. June 15, 2004).

Catherine E. Vance
Vice President of Research & Policy
Development Specialists, Inc.
6375 Riverside Dr., Suite 200
Dublin , OH 43017
(614) 734-2717
cvance@dsi.biz

back to top ^

National Convention Election Report

At the Annual Session of the Bankruptcy Section on Sunday, July 11 in Newport, Rhode Island, the members of the Bankruptcy Section voted to accept the Nominating Slate as submitted by the Nominating Committee, pursuant to the rules of the Bankruptcy Section Bylaws. As no petitions for additions to the slate were received, the elections took place by voice vote and the slate was unanimously approved.

The new Commercial Law League of America's Bankruptcy Section officers and Executive Council members are as follows:

Officers (1 year term: 2004-2005)

  • Chair - Alan I. Nahmias, Plotkin, Rapoport & Nahmias, Encino, CA
  • Chair-Elect– Cathy Pike, Weber and Rose, PSC, Louisville, KY
  • Secretary – Robert S. Bernstein, Bernstein Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA  

Executive Council (three year terms: 2004 - 2007)

  • Brian Behar, Behar, Gutt & Glazer, PA, Aventura, FL
  • Deborah K. Ebner, Law Offices of Deborah K. Ebner, Chicago, IL
  • Nigel Hamer, The Hamer Group, Sherman Oaks, CA
  • Catherine E. Vance, Development Specialists, Inc., Dublin, OH

Executive Council (one year term, 2004-2006) to complete unexpired term of Cathy Pike:

  • Ivan Reich, Becker & Poliakoff, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL

back to top ^

Washington Hot News

Prospects for Export Tax Conference Lowered
The prospects of a conference on export tax repeal legislation (H.R. 4520, the Senate version formerly S.1637), containing the government's use of private collection professionals for overdue tax debt, appears to have dimmed somewhat due to numerous issues (unrelated to the aforementioned provision).

The House, which has not even appointed conferees, it is believed, has even objected to the proposed number of House members to sit on the conference.

Privacy Bill Approved by Ways and Means
On July 21st, the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously approved the chairman's amendment/substitute to the Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act (H.R. 2971).

The bill restricts the sale and public display of Social Security numbers (SSN), limits credit reporting agencies' dissemination of SSN, and makes it difficult for businesses to deny services to a customer refusing to provide a SSN.

Bankruptcy Courts Corrupted by Competition for Big Cases
"The Bankruptcy Courts of the United States have inadvertently been thrown into competition for big bankruptcy cases" law professor Lynn LoPucki said.  "That competition is changing bankruptcy law and practice in ways not contemplated by Congress and corrupting those courts."

This was the view of a majority of the witnesses at the July 21 oversight hearing on the commercial bankruptcy system held by the House Judiciary Committee's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.

LoPucki, a Professor of Law at the University of California, criticized "forum shopping", filing for bankruptcy away from the company's headquarters, which he stated has increased from about 20% of bankruptcy cases, pre-80's, to about 40 percent in the 80's, and now stands at about 60-70%. LoPucki added that Congress ignored the 1996 recommendation of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to end forum shopping by only allowing corporations to file for bankruptcy in the city of their headquarters or at the principal assets in the United States.

LoPucki also suggested some courts push the limitations. In support, he pointed out that, between 1991-1996, of public companies that filed for bankruptcy in Delaware, 42% and 19% of cases in New York, re-filed for bankruptcy within five years of emerging the first time. This occurred only 4% of the time in other courts.

LoPucki cited common factors of the cases resulting in re-filings:

  • 30-day prepackaged cases (plans and disclosure statements voted on by creditors prior to a company filing);
  • Critical vendor orders, allowing for payment of suppliers whose cooperation is needed for a company's reorganization; and
  • Section 363 sales, which authorizes the sale of a company under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Brickman, law professor at Cardozo and an expert on asbestos litigation, stated numerous fraudulent claims have been made against asbestos companies forcing many into bankruptcy, with lawyers controlling a company's fate as well as the site of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Roberta DeAngelis, acting Region 3 United States Trustee, defended the job the UST is doing to review bankruptcy applications, and stated that with regard to conflicts of interest and compensation, the United States Trustee, "is confronting dynamic situations in which new fact scenarios must be applied to established statutory and case law."

Committee members, including Chairman Cannon (R-Utah) and Ranking Member Watt (D-N.C.), questioned, with some trepidation, what the state of the bankruptcy court system would be like in the future.

Social Security Number Restriction Bill Advances
On July 15th, The House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee reported out the chairman's version of H.R. 2971, "The Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2004." The bill restricts the sale and public display of Social Security numbers, limits dissemination of Social Security numbers by credit reporting agencies, and makes it difficult for businesses to deny services if a customer refuses to provide his or her Social Security number.

Senate to Go to Conference on Export Tax Repeal Legislation
Also on the 15th, the Senate agreed by voice vote to move to conference on the export tax repeal legislation (H.R. 4520/S.1637) and appointed conferees, putting the onus on the House to name its conferees and move to the negotiating table.

The agreement will give Senate Democrats a significant say at the conference table, in a framework similar to the one offered to Democrats on an unrelated highway bill. The agreement provides for a ratio of 11 Democrats to 12 Republicans on the conference committee.

As a reminder, the bills contain language allowing for the collection of outstanding IRS debt by private collection professionals. The bill currently covers this issue as follows:

House Bill: Permits the IRS to use private debt collection companies to locate and contact taxpayers owing outstanding tax liabilities of any type and to arrange payment of those taxes by the taxpayers. Procedural requirements would be imposed on the private debt collection professionals. It would be effective on the date of enactment.

Senate Bill: Similar provision, except the program would sunset after five years and requires the IRS to submit a biennial program evaluation report to Congress.

Entities Covered by FCRA
All should be aware of new definitions of creditor and credit in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act).

Until the FACT Act, the FCRA had no formal definition for credit or creditor. In §603(r)(5), the definition of credit and creditor in FCRA are now the same as in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act - which resulted in an expansive definition of credit and creditor. According to an FTC attorney, this could include mortgage brokers, car dealers, and doctors. As an example, the FTC attorney cited an orthodontist who has an arrangement with a lender and provides a brochure from the lender to a patient, that orthodontist is likely to be a creditor under the FCRA as amended by the FACT Act.

For more WASHINGTON NEWS click here.

back to top ^

 

Critical Issues Survey Results

Thank you for your input on the recent Critical Issues Survey. Attached is a copy of the results of the Survey for your review. We had a 15% response to the Survey from the Bankruptcy Section's membership (149 out of 981). As you can see, the issues that created the most interest were venue, bankruptcy judgeships, clarification on the Committee's powers, disinterestedness and serial filers. In addition, preference defenses and family farmer bankruptcies also had a significant response.

The Legislative Committee is now planning to update position papers on these highlighted issues. If you have an interest in developing a particular position paper, please contact me or be sure to attend the Committee's meeting at the New York Conference in November. Thanks.

Peter C. Califano, Esq.
Cooper, White & Cooper LLP
Telephone: (415) 433-1900
pcc@cwclaw.com

back to top ^

CLLA Accepting Nominations for Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in Bankruptcy

The Commercial Law League of America announced that August 15, 2004 will be the deadline for submission of nominations for the 2004 Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in Bankruptcy.

The King Award is given annually to an individual who exemplifies the standards set by the late New York University Law School professor. The award is given to the lawyer, judge, teacher or legislator who exemplifies the best in scholarship, advocacy, judicial administration or legislative activities in the field of bankruptcy. Established in 2001, this award has been presented to Professor Lawrence King (in memoriam,2001), Professor Elizabeth Warren (2002) and The Honorable Joe Lee (2003).

The award will be presented at the 16th Annual Commercial Law League Breakfast to be held at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. The breakfast features a keynote speech by James Carville, presidential political pundit. The breakfast is sponsored, in part, by the generous support of Garden City Group, Inc., specialists in legal administration services and the CLLA's Bankruptcy Section and Fund for Public Education. Details can be found by clicking here.

The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Annual Meeting will be held October 10-13, 2004 in Nashville, Tennessee. The CLLA breakfast and education program will be held Monday, October 11, 2004. Details can be found here.

back to top ^