Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The Supreme Court's answer raises more questions

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court failed to resolve conflicts among the US Courts of Appeals and US Bankruptcy Courts regarding the ability to cram down mortgages under section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 1322(b)(2) was intended to limit the ability of Chapter 13 debtors to modify claims secured by mortgages. Some courts have, nonetheless, approved plans that used cram down laws to bifurcate undersecured mortgages into secured and unsecured components. The Supreme Court's decision further confused the issue by allowing the debtor to bifurcate the claim but restricting the ability to cram down the unsecured portion.

Author: Van Engen, Brian K.
Publisher: University of Iowa Journal of Corporation Law
Publication Name: The Journal of Corporation Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0360-795X
Year: 1995
Mortgages

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The only thought is in the name

Article Abstract:

The US 1st Circuit Court of Appeals confused further the question of when parties to a bankruptcy can determine the effective date of rejection of a non-residential lease under 11 U.S.C. 365(a). The court held the effective date is the time of judicial action on the rejection petition, but that courts can retroactively apply the rejection of the lease to the debtors' time of filing the petition. Creditors have little recourse against unfavorable decisions because appeals courts defer to the deciding courts' discretion unless abuses of discretion are proved.

Author: Guynn, Mary O.
Publisher: Emory Baptist Church
Publication Name: Bankruptcy Developments Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0890-7862
Year: 1997
Commercial leases, Retroactive judicial decisions

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Post-Gilmer developments in mandatory arbitration: the expansion of mandatory arbitration for statutory claims and the congressional effort to reverse the trend

Article Abstract:

Mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts do not appear to lessen the chances of employees receiving fair treatment in disputes with employers, but congressional action allowing more judicial review of such events may be needed to guarantee fairness and increase public acceptance. The effect of the Gilmer case on employee mandatory arbitration and likely congressional remedies are dsicussed.

Author: Van Engen, Brian K.
Publisher: University of Iowa Journal of Corporation Law
Publication Name: The Journal of Corporation Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0360-795X
Year: 1996
Interpretation and construction, Negotiation, mediation and arbitration, Labor law, Employee dismissals, Employment terminations, Employment at will, Labor arbitration

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Bankruptcy law, Priorities of claims and liens, Case Note
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Baird uproar puts lawyer in delicate situation. Verdict trends in 1995 disregard the clamor: congressional tort revision uproar has had little effect
  • Abstracts: Outsider or frontrunner? Recent developments under international and European Union in international organizations and treaty bodies
  • Abstracts: Consumer protection on the market for consumer credit in Poland-Do near-banks enter the "second market"-similar to the British model?
  • Abstracts: The Supreme Court and international law: the demise of Restatement section 403. The President's constitutional authority to use limited military force
  • Abstracts: Austria's affirmative action for women workers versus protective legislation for the "weaker sex": incongruous concepts?
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.