Sua Sponte

“A Sweet Ending . . . and A New Beginning . . .” “Clearly the ‘Best of Times’” According to Mr. Charles Dickens

Judith Greenstone Miller
Raymond & Prokop, P.C.
jmiller@raypro.com

It seems hard to believe that a year has almost past since I wrote my first Sua Sponte and assumed the position as Chair of the Bankruptcy Section of the Commercial Law League of America. It has been a year of growth and excitement for the Section and the League. Much change has been afoot, all geared toward making the Section and the League more dynamic and responsive to the needs of its members.

• Read more...

Case Analysis

Do Not Count Your Dollars Until Your Default Judgment Has Hatched: Ninth Circuit Permits Corporate Officer to Discharge $1.2 million Dollar Judgment for Corporate Fraud

Karen J. Porter
Law Office of Karen J. Porter, Ltd.
kjp@kjplaw.net

Summary: In In re Cantrell, 329 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit decided that the debt a corporate officer owed to the corporation for fraudulently converting corporate assets to his personal use can be discharged. Under California law, a corporate officer is not a fiduciary as that term is defined by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) which provides that a debt for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity is not dischargeable.

• Read more...

Case Law Update

Catherine E. Vance, Esq.
vance76@earthlink.net
(614) 336-3861

Dismissal of Appeal on Equitable Grounds. Substantial consummation of chapter 11 plan, as factor considered to determine whether appeal is equitably moot, requires inquiry into whether appeal, if successful, might unravel reorganization plan, rather than formalistic inquiry into whether plan has been substantially consummated under Bankruptcy Code definition. Court also has no authority under Third Circuit precedent to refuse to entertain an appeal it has power to hear on basis of ad hoc balancing of self-selected equitable considerations. United States Trustee v. Official Comm. Of Equity Sec. Holders (In re Zenith Elecs. Corp.), 329 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2003).

• Read more...

Sua Sponte

“A Sweet Ending . . . and A New Beginning . . .” “Clearly the ‘Best of Times’” According to Mr. Charles Dickens

It seems hard to believe that a year has almost past since I wrote my first Sua Sponte and assumed the position as Chair of the Bankruptcy Section of the Commercial Law League of America. It has been a year of growth and excitement for the Section and the League. Much change has been afoot, all geared toward making the Section and the League more dynamic and responsive to the needs of its members.

The Executive Council of the Section has been very busy during this last year. The Newsletter Committee, under the strong leadership of Karen Porter and Briar Behar, expanded the breadth and depth of the electronic monthly newsletter of the Section. Just recently, Robert Amkraut of the Newsletter Committee, assumed the responsibility, with the assistance of Cathy Vance and Sarah Jolie, for publishing “Practice Alert” news tips (“just hot off the presses”) to keep the membership informed about new case law decisions, legislative developments and topics of interest in the bankruptcy and commercial arena. Along with a short summary of relevant information, the Committee has often times included a link to the actual case decision, thereby providing an instant and full analysis for review by the members.

The King Award Committee, chaired by Fred Luper and Henry Swergold, got off to an early and energetic start. Many wonderful nominations were received by the Committee, and it was difficult, at best, to determine who, among the many nominees, should be the recipient this year. Choosing Elizabeth Warren from Harvard University was clearly a terrific choice as the recipient of the Lawrence P. King Award for 2002. Not only was Larry King a colleague and mentor to Elizabeth Warren, but also a true friend and someone whom she respected and honored. Her thoughtful, dynamic and touching remarks at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in Chicago and again at the Eastern Regional Meeting in New York about Larry King, the Section and the League were appreciated and heartfelt by all. The League also honored Elizabeth Warren by making her an honorary, lifetime member of the League. She is also serving on the National Governmental Affairs Committee as an advisor. We look forward to Elizabeth Warren and future recipients of the Award getting more involved in Section and League activities.

Education has always been and continues to be a primary focus of the Section. This year was no different. The Education Committee, chaired by Cathy Pike and Alan Gordon, worked tirelessly, in conjunction with the National Education Committee, to plan and put on tremendous programs on hot and emerging issues, as well as practical tips, at each of the meetings held this year to educate and to assist our members in providing quality legal services. The programs were filled with speakers that were experts, practitioners or professors in the field. The educational materials were first rate, as prior to publication, each of the presentations were reviewed and critiqued by Cathy Vance, the League’s Educational Coordinator. Her endless hours and undying energy clearly contributed to the overall success of the educational programs this year, and will continue to place the Section and the League in a wonderful position on a prospective basis.

This year the Section and the League lost one of its loved ones – the Honorable Frank Koger, a pillar in the bankruptcy community. Judge Koger, a past president of the League, had served as the Chair of the League’s NCBJ Committee for the last seventeen years. Each year he took responsibility for planning the educational program on hot and emerging issues, as well as the League’s NCBJ Breakfast. I was very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work closely with Judge Koger the last two years on these programs. He was a perfectionist, par excellence!!! Each year these programs received rave reviews. To honor the memory of Judge Koger, the educational program will be renamed in his honor, and he will be recognized at the breakfast meeting at this year’s NCBJ in October in San Diego. We are very fortunate to have had Judge Judith Fitzgerald, a member of the Executive Council, assume the leadership of this committee. She has not missed a beat – the transition has been seamless. Her energy, enthusiasm, professionalism and attention to detail will continue to foster the success of these programs.

The other area in which the Section and the League shine nationally is through the efforts of the Section’s Legislative Committee chaired this past year by Jay Welford and Peter Califano. This Committee works in conjunction with the National Governmental Affairs Committee, Cathy Vance and David Goch, the League’s lobbyist and general counsel, to provide thorough and reasoned analyses of pending and enacted legislation. The League and the Section are regularly and consistently contacted by Congress to provide expert testimony and position papers on issues involving bankruptcy, privacy and fair debt collection practices. Just recently in March, I was honored to serve as one of four witnesses testifying on behalf of the League on the pending bankruptcy legislation before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Laws. The activities of the Legislative Committee and its commitment to quickly react and respond to legislative developments on a qualitative and quantitative basis cannot be overemphasized – this work continues to heighten the stature and national reputation of the Section and the League.

The Section’s and the League’s relationship with INSOL has been enhanced this year through the leadership of Harry Greenfield. News columns highlighting each of the groups’ activities have appeared in their respective newsletters and magazines. There has also been a heightened interest by both groups to learn more about each other and to find ways in which each group may enhance and build upon the activities of each other. The League and the Section are also very honored and fortunate to have Robert Hertzberg, one of its past leaders and past Chair of the Section, now serving as the Chair of INSOL. We look forward to continued opportunities to network with INSOL through Bob’s strong leadership. The League and the Section will be honoring Bob for this accomplishment at its Eastern Regional Meeting in New York in November, and hope that you will join us in recognizing Bob’s accomplishment at that time.

The Long Range Planning Committee met in April at the Midwest Regional Meeting in Chicago. Many wonderful ideas for expanding the Section, its membership and activities were discussed at that time. This Committee will continue to be critical to the future growth and development of the Section. It is an area where members can have significant input. If you have a suggestion for improving the Section, its activities or its benefits, please contact a member of this Committee – it is also a great place for members to get involved! The members of the Committee include Jay Welford, Louis Robin, Alan Nahmias, Mary Whitmer, Harry Greenfield, Rick Johanson and me.

The Nominating Committee, chaired by Harry Greenfield, has presented a slate of executive officers and new members of the Executive Council that will provide great leadership for the Section next year and for years to come. New and younger members are getting involved with the Section’s activities and expressing interest in serving on the Executive Council. This is good and important in expanding the depth and breadth of the Section, maintaining excitement, enthusiasm and vitality for the Section and developing a new pool of talent and leadership within the Section. I wish the new Executive Committee loads of success – they are a dynamic and diverse group that will take the Section to a new level. I know that I leave you in good hands with Louis Robin, the Chair Elect – may he have a wonderful beginning and a sweet year!

It has truly been a very fulfilling, productive and “sweet year” for me. I have enjoyed serving as Chair of the Section and working with you. Special thanks to Jay Welford, Harry Greenfield, Cathy Vance, David Goch and Sarah Jolie – their undying assistance, guidance, advice and support throughout the year made my job so . . . easy. More importantly, however, I so appreciated their insight, perspective and concern whenever an issue of import confronted the Section. Although my official position will end next month, I look forward to continuing my involvement, enthusiasm and participation with the Section and the League.

Judith Greenstone Miller
Raymond & Prokop, P.C.
26300 Northwestern Highway
4th Floor - P.O. Box 5058
Southfield, MI 48086-5058
Phone: 248-357-3010
Fax: 248-357-2720
jmiller@raypro.com
www.raypro.com

back to top ^

Case Analysis

Do Not Count Your Dollars Until Your Default Judgment Has Hatched: Ninth Circuit Permits Corporate Officer to Discharge $1.2 million Dollar Judgment for Corporate Fraud

Summary: In In re Cantrell, 329 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit decided that the debt a corporate officer owed to the corporation for fraudulently converting corporate assets to his personal use can be discharged. Under California law, a corporate officer is not a fiduciary as that term is defined by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) which provides that a debt for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity is not dischargeable.

Facts: In 1995, Cal-Micro, Inc., sued Gregory Cantrell in California state court for claims arising out of a failed stock purchase. Cantrell was an officer of Cal-Micro and an officer of Omni Enterprises. In 1993, Omni purchased a controlling percentage of Cal-Micro’s stock. Omni defaulted on the payments due under the stock purchase agreement, the agreement was rescinded and the stock was returned to the seller, the Pauline Countryman Trust. Cal-Micro, the Countryman Trust and others sued Cantrell, Omni and other individual and corporate defendants for: 1) converting corporate assets to their personal use; 2) making unauthorized loans to themselves and the corporate defendant; 3) using extensions of credit and credit cards to obtain goods and services for themselves and the corporate defendants; and 4) failing to use the income and assets of Cal-Micro to pay its taxes, insurance and operating expenses.

Cantrell was served with the complaint by publication rather than personal service. A default judgment was entered against Cantrell for $1,287,118.75, which included $10,000.00 in punitive damages. The judgment order did not specify the causes of action that entry of the judgment was based upon. The judgment order did not include any express findings of fact made by the state court. The judgment was recorded and Cantrell received notification of the judgment lien. Cantrell waited to file a motion to set aside the judgment until after the two year period provided by California law to set aside defaults had expired. The state court denied Cantrell’s motion as untimely and the California Court of Appeals affirmed. Shortly thereafter, Cantrell filed a chapter 7 case to discharge the judgment.

Cal-Micro filed a complaint against Cantrell under § 523(a)(2) and (4) and sought a determination from the bankruptcy court that the default judgment was not dischargeable. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court relied upon Ragsdale v Haller, 780 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1986), a decision concluding that partners are fiduciaries for the purposes of § 523(a)(4). The bankruptcy court found no reason, for the purposes of § 523(a)(4), to distinguish between a partner and a director, officer or controlling shareholder of a corporation, and granted Cal-Micro’s motion for summary judgment. Cantrell appealed.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed after finding that the default judgment was not “actually litigated” and should not have been given estoppel effect. The BAP also decided that Cantrell was not a fiduciary for § 523(a)(4) purposes solely because he was an officer and director of the corporation. Cal-Micro appealed. The Ninth Circuit agreed on the fiduciary issue. Cantrell won the last round. He is judgment free.

Analysis: The Ninth Circuit first considered the issue of using collateral estoppel to enforce the default judgment. The standards used by the California courts to determine if collateral estoppel can be used to prevent relitigation of an issue determined in a prior proceeding are consistent with the standards applied by most courts: 1) the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; 2) the issue must have been actually litigated; 3) the issue must have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding; 4) the decision from the prior proceeding must be on the merits and final; and, 5) the parties sought to be precluded must be the same, or in privity.

The court found that Cantrell had actual knowledge of the default judgment and had sufficient time to move to set the judgment aside under state law. Cantrell had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the default judgment. Therefore, the notice and actually litigated requirements were met. The failure of the state court to make express findings of fact did not prevent the use of collateral estoppel.

The court also found that in order for the state court to award $10,000 in punitive damages, California law required a finding of “oppression, fraud or malice.” This was sufficient to convince the court that the judgment could only have been based upon Cal-Micro’s claims that Cantrell fraudulently withdrew and used its assets for his personal use. The court concluded that Cantrell’s fraudulent conduct was necessarily decided by the state court. The default judgment was final and the remaining requirements for estoppel were satisfied. Cantrell was barred from relitigating the issue that he engaged in fraudulent conduct as an officer of Cal-Micro.

However, the Ninth Circuit went on to find that giving the default judgment estoppel effect was not enough for Cal-Micro to establish that Cantrell was a fiduciary for the purpose of finding that the judgment was not dischargeable under § 523(a)(4). The court followed the prevailing trend that adopts a narrow reading of the term “fiduciary.” The broad definition of fiduciary, a relationship involving confidence, trust and good faith, is inapplicable in the dischargeability context. Relying on Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794,796 (9th Cir. 1986) and Lewis v Scott, 97 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1996), the court held that the fiduciary relationship must be one arising from an express or technical trust that was imposed before and without reference to the wrongdoing that caused the debt. The court examined California law and determined that Bainbridge v. Stoner, 106 P.2d. 423 (Cal. 1940), was controlling. In that case, the California Supreme Court held that although a director of a corporation acts in a fiduciary capacity, the relationship is technically one of agency and not one of trust.

The technicality was sufficient for Cantrell to defeat Cal-Micro. The Ninth Circuit found that under California law corporate officers and directors are not trustees with respect to corporate assets. Further, the court rejected the expansion of California partnership law, which makes all partners trustees of partnership assets, to the corporate context. The court concluded Cantrell was not a fiduciary for the purposes of § 523(a)(4) and that he was entitled to a summary judgment that his debt to Cal-Micro was dischargeable.

Comment: The Cantrell case raises important procedural and substantive issues. Would Cal-Micro have fared better if it did not rely exclusively upon the default judgment to establish nondischargeabilty under § 523(a)(4)? Could Cal-Micro have retried its claims against Cantrell in the bankruptcy court to obtain a determination that his conduct was actual fraud that was not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)? If the default judgment included express findings of fact made by the state court establishing the specific details of Cantrell’s fraudulent conduct, would that have enabled Cal-Micro to use collateral estoppel and obtain a summary judgment that the debt was not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)? This decision highlights the need for lawyers to consider dischargeabilty issues when drafting complaints and obtaining judgments for fraud.

The decision also raises corporate law issues. Cantrell’s fraud may not have been dischargeable if the plaintiffs were creditors of Cal-Micro rather than the corporation itself. The Ninth Circuit in a footnote discusses California law that finds directors of an insolvent corporation owe a fiduciary duty to creditors. The court suggests that such a director might be a fiduciary for the purposes of § 523(a)(4). The prevailing view is that the fiduciary relationship for §523(a)(4) purposes must exist before the wrongdoing creating the debt and can be established by contract. This raises the question of a corporation’s ability to protect itself from the discharge of fraud claims against its officers by provisions in the by-laws or other contractual agreements with its officers creating an express trust. Given the volume of corporate culpability litigation pending in our courts, we are likely to have more opportunities to explore these issues in the future.

Karen J. Porter
Law Office of Karen J. Porter, Ltd.
11 E. Adams St., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60603-6303
(312) 673-0333
kjp@kjplaw.net

back to top ^

Case Law Update

June, 2003

Dismissal of Appeal on Equitable Grounds. Substantial consummation of chapter 11 plan, as factor considered to determine whether appeal is equitably moot, requires inquiry into whether appeal, if successful, might unravel reorganization plan, rather than formalistic inquiry into whether plan has been substantially consummated under Bankruptcy Code definition. Court also has no authority under Third Circuit precedent to refuse to entertain an appeal it has power to hear on basis of ad hoc balancing of self-selected equitable considerations. United States Trustee v. Official Comm. Of Equity Sec. Holders (In re Zenith Elecs. Corp.), 329 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2003).

Protection of Good Faith Purchasers under § 363(m). In affirming asset purchase agreement that included a provision releasing entities from avoidance liability, court, inter alia, rejected contention that case law supports exception from § 363(m) protections where purchaser is a creditor of the estate. Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. Trism, Inc. (In re Trism, Inc.), 328 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2003).

Sovereign Immunity. State tax claimant filed proof of claim in debtors’ Chapter 13 case, which was subsequently converted to Chapter 7. After discharge issued, claimant pursued collection remedies and debtors filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court seeking order that debt had been discharged. Claimant asserted sovereign immunity. Held, claimant waived sovereign immunity by filing proof of claim in Chapter 13 and, because debt at issue in adversary proceeding arose from same transaction or occurrence, waiver applies to adversary proceeding as well. California v. Harleston (In re Harleston), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11215 (9th Cir. June 5, 2003) aff’g California v. Harleston (In re Harleston), 275 B.R. 546 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002).

Retroactive Application of Craft v. United States. Rule announced by United States Supreme Court in Craft v. United States, 535 U.S. 274 (2002), that government may levy property titled as tenancy by the entirety, is “controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate announcement of the rule.” Hatchett v. United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11094 (6th Cir. June 4, 2003) quoting Harper v. Virginia Dep’t. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 (1993).

Administrative Expenses Priority/Executive Compensation. Compensation due executive under employment agreement, which had been rejected, was not entitled to administrative priority; consideration given for the agreement, to forego other employment opportunities, was provided prepetition and executive was compensated for services rendered to debtor in possession. Consideration for executive’s retention agreement was also provided prepetition and was nonexecutory because executive owed no performance thereunder. Mason v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re FBI Distrib. Corp.), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (1st Cir. May 27, 2003).

Automatic Stay and Postpetition Transfers. Section 549(c) does not create an exception to the automatic stay, the exceptions to which are limited to those delineated in § 362(b). Therefore, District Court decision quieting title in former debtor, whose bankruptcy petition had been determined filed in bad faith and dismissed, is affirmed. 40235 Wash. St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10358 (9th Cir. May 23, 2003) aff’g 40235 Wash. St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (S.D. Cal. 2001).

Involuntary Bankruptcy. Second Circuit formally adopts objective test to determine whether bona fide dispute exists between debtor and petitioning creditors; creditor must establish prima facie case that no bona fide dispute exists and, once shown, burden shifts to debtor to demonstrate existence of bona fide dispute. Key Mechanical, Inc. v. BDC 56, LLC (In re BDC 56, LLC), 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10242 (2d Cir. May 21, 2003).

Catherine E. Vance, Esq.
Columbus, Ohio
614-336-3861
vance76@earthlink.net


back to top ^

NOMINATING COMMITTEE SLATES CANDIDATES

The Nominating Committee for the Bankruptcy Section met to select a slate of candidates for positions on the Section's Executive Council for terms beginning in July, 2003. Section bylaws specify that any section member may submit a nominating petition for a position on the Executive Council. Each petition must have signatures of at least ten Section members and be submitted to Harry Greenfield, Nominating Committee Chair, with a copy to Sarah Jolie at the CLLA Office at least five days before the Section's Annual Meeting in July.

Elections will be held on July 12, 2003 at the general membership meeting of the Bankruptcy Section during the National Convention at the Fairmont Orchid at Mauna Lani, Island of Hawaii.

Members of the Nominating Committee are: Harry Greenfield (Buckley, King, Cleveland, OH), Elizabeth Doucet (Elizabeth H. Doucet & Associates, Co., LPA, Columbus, OH), Joseph Braunstein (Riemer & Braunstein, Boston, MA), Brian Behar (Behar, Gutt & Glazer, PA, Aventura FL) and Milton Goldfarb (Milton P. Goldfarb, LLC., St. Louis, MO)

Harry Greenfield, Nominating Committee Chair, announced the following candidates:

Officers (1 year term: 2003-2004)

Chair - Louis Robin, Fitzgerald, O'Brien, Robin & Shapiro, Longmeadow, MA
Chair-Elect– Alan I. Nahmias, Plotkin, Rapoport & Nahmias, Encino, CA
Secretary – Robert S. Bernstein, Bernstein Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA

Officer (2 year term: 2003-2005)

Treasurer – Jay L. Welford, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, Detroit, MI

Executive Council (three year terms: 2003-2006)

Peter Califano, Cooper, White & Cooper, LLP, San Francisco, CA
Cathy Pike, Weber and Rose, Louisville, KY
Jeffrey N. Schatzman, Schatzman & Schatzman, PA, Miami, FL
William H. Schorling, Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Schorling, PC, Philadelphia, PA

Executive Council (one year term, 2003-2004) to complete unexpired term of resigned Council member.

Nigel Hamer, The Hamer Group, Sherman Oaks, CA

back to top ^

WASHINGTON HOT NEWS

June 24, 2003

Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 2465, a bill extending for six months Chapter 12, which provides special bankruptcy protections that allow family farmers to hold onto their assets while reorganizing debt.

The 379-3 vote would extend the protections beyond the June 30 expiration until Dec. 31. The Senate is expected to act quickly on the House version, sending it to President Bush for his signature. The three voting against the bankruptcy bill were Reps. Flake (R-AZ), Paul (R-TX) and Rohrabacher (R-CA).

June 10, 2003
Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003.

On June 10th, the House, by a voice vote, passed H.R. 1529, the "Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act of 2003," a bill which was introduced by Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on April 1st to stop the increasing trend of frivolously filed involuntary bankruptcy cases. Sensenbrenner believes that such cases have the potential to destroy an innocent person's credit and reputation in the community.

June 5, 2003
California Privacy Bill Moves.

On June 3rd, California Governor Davis (D) extended support for S.B. 1, the bill that would give California the strongest financial privacy protections in the nation. Davis indicated he would fight to ensure passage of the measure.

On June 4th, amendments were made to the bill, which were key to Davis' vocal support (this being the third time California has tried to pass the bill).

The Bill is a hybrid of opt-in and opt-out provisions. The opt-in requirements, requiring consumer consent, apply to financial institutions before sharing nonpublic personal information with unaffiliated third parties. Op-out requirements would still apply to institutions that want to share such information with affiliates. However, under the Amendments, sharing would not be restricted if four conditions are met: the subsidiary is wholly owned; the affiliated companies are in the same line of business such as banking or securities; the affiliates report to the same functional regulator; and they have the same brand name.

The amendments also allow the sharing of information under "affinity card" arrangements between entities and banks. Consumers could opt-out of the sharing of this information.

The amendments also include a specific notice, entitled "Important Privacy Choices for Consumers," that could be used as a safe harbor to comply with the bill's consumer notice requirements. Failure to use the standard notice would require a company to meet specific clarity and readability standards. The attorney general would review the notices for compliance.

On a related note, a coalition of consumer groups and privacy rights organizations also voiced their support for the bill, but said they would not abandon their campaign for a ballot initiative that would be even more restrictive.

back to top ^

Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in Bankruptcy

The Commercial Law League of America announced that July 15, 2003 will be the deadline for submission of nominations for the 2003 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. “The recipient will have made a lasting contribution to the improvement of commerce and to the fair and ethical treatment of debtors, creditors, and the public at large,” said Judy Miller, of the Southfield, Michigan law firm of Raymond & Prokop, PC who currently serves as Chair of the CLLA’s Bankruptcy Section.

“This award recognizes a career, not an event,” added John P. Wanderer of Wanderer Law Firm of Las Vegas, Nevada, President of the Commercial Law League of America.

The plaque signifying the Award will be presented at the CLLA’s Annual New York Conference in November 2003. The name of the recipient will be announced at the CLLA’s annual education program presented in conjunction with the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges held in October. The award was presented to Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School in 2002.

To submit a name for consideration as the recipient of the 2003 Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in Bankruptcy, please click here for the nomination form. All nomination forms are due by July 15, 2003.

back to top ^