Southern District Stern Review: Rakoff Rules that Fraudulent Transfer Actions Belong in Bankruptcy Court, But Only for Reports and Recommendations
Next, the court turned to the “heart” of Stern – i.e., the public vs. private rights distinction. Relying on Marathon, Granfinanciera, and Stern, the court held that fraudulent conveyance actions were “private rights” claims, in that they are “quintessentially suits at common law that more nearly resemble state law contract claims … than they do creditors’ hierarchically ordered claims to a pro rata share of the bankruptcy res.” (quoting Stern and Granfinanciera). Moreover, the court held that the Refco Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claims would have no effect on the bankruptcy case and would simply increase payouts to creditors under the confirmed plan of reorganization. Still further, the court recognized that, even if consent could confer authority on the bankruptcy court (which it did not decide), the defendants in this action had not filed proofs of claim or otherwise consented to the court’s authority to enter a final judgment.
Source: weil.com
Video: Bankruptcy Attorney, Senior Partner
Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Information
The Southern District of Florida, like many other federal districts, is divided by division in order to better serve local communities. In the bankruptcy context, the division you live in determines the location of your 341 meeting of creditors as well as the bankruptcy court that will hear any motions or litigation that results from the filing of your case. For example, if you were to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy and you live in Dade County, your 341 meeting would be held at the Bankruptcy Courthouse in Miami. If you live in Broward County, your 341 meeting would be held at the Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. The goal is to make the Courts more accessible to South Floridians. If the only bankruptcy court in the Southern District of Florida were located in Miami, it would impose a traffic jammed commute down I-95 on Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach residents. Clearly, it is more convenient for South Florida residents to have the courts divided by division so that residents of Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach can attend their meeting of creditors locally and are not forced to fight traffic commuting to Miami.
Source: nationalbankruptcyforum.com
LightSquared Files for Bankruptcy
The filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York comes nearly a year-and-a-half after the FCC granted the company a waiver to begin building the network in the L-band frequency, setting off a storm of protest from the aviation industry and other users of GPS concerned about the threat of interference with navigation receivers operating in the same band. The FCC withdrew the waiver in February after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration had concluded that there was no practical way to mitigate potential interference with GPS.
Source: ainonline.com
ResCap Goes Broke Leaving Families In Limbo
Tagged With: Ally financial, banking, banks, Business News, economic meltdown, Eric Schneiderman, financial crisis, foreclosure, foreclosure actions, foreclosure crisis, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure help, foreclosure help new york, foreclosure proceeding, foreclosure rescue, foreclosures, GMAC, Homeowners Insurance, Housing Crisis, illegal foreclosures, illegal foreclosures in New York, insurance fraud, mortgage assignments, mortgage backed securities, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage disputes, Mortgage Foreclosures, mortgage fraud, mortgage help, mortgages, New York courts, new york foreclosure fraud, new york foreclosures, new york fraud, new york mortgage fraud, ResCap, ResCap Bankruptcy
Source: mfi-miami.com
Wireless startup LightSquared files for bankruptcy
“; // All the postings var allPostings = new Array(“placeholder” , Array(‘Elementary School Principal’, ‘Mesa Public Schools’, ‘Mesa Public Schools is a K-12 district of…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G00H65CMMVC5949G6&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CLIENT SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Client Service Representative Phoenix, AZ…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G0CF6V4RD4CC168NY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Vet Receptionist’, ‘Arcadia Animal Clinic’, ‘Vet Receptionist Phoenix, AZ Part Time, …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1436PMGM3ZRXKKZV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator’, ‘Federal Public Defender-Phoenix’, ‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G164786T28N91HG1P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CLASS A OWNER OPERATORS AND COMPANY DRIVERS’, ‘Dependable Highway Express’, ‘Class A Owner Operators & Company Drivers…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1DK6N3GZP7PR69BV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COORDINATOR’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Construction Project Coordinator Needed …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1JF6KFVF9GKQJVPX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Courtroom Deputy Clerk’, ‘Federal Court’, ‘Federal Court – Courtroom Deputy Clerk -…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1M5765JS2C7L3ZR5&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘TELEMARKETERS – TELEMARKETING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Calling all Telemarketers! Tired of not …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QQ714LK76QFKVH8&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Banquet Manager, Restaurant Manager and Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Reynolds Plantation’, ‘Now accepting applications for the following…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QR604289K51NNPT&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Four Peaks Grill & Tap’, ‘Four Peaks, Arizona’s number one brewery…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1ZL6WWK30GFXZ40P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Concrete Paver Operator’, ‘Northern Improvement Co.’, ‘Concrete Paver Operator Phoenix, AZ 928-…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2617393X2QPFXM7P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘PHYSICIAN’, ‘HELEN FOUNDATION’, ‘Physician Mesa, AZ Physician, Part-time,…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G29K65467V1DJ084Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drywall – Framers / Hangers / Tapers’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drywall – Top Pay and benefits for Top hands…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2BM6JHS8WS4C0LBS&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Warehouse Manager’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Warehouse Manager Lakeside, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2TS6NJ6WS1NPDJK4&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Ironworker’, ‘Noble Steel’, ‘Ironworkers Phoenix, AZ Phone Lea’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G36Z6JY2G5C2CZ667&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Mechanic & Equipment Assembler’, ‘Fimco Industries’, ‘Fimco Industries is currently looking for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3FV6TGC09YRHW9LP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drivers – Company Drivers and Owner Operators’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drivers Company Drivers & Owners Operators…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3ZF5X20QN4QNPZ8J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘OTR DRIVERS’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘OTR Drivers United States 804-798′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4H46GZY6RQT21X85&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’2nd Shift SMT Technician’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’2ND shift SMT Technician Responsible for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4N95WZTQTXZL6632&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Electrical Journeyman’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Electrical journeyman needed with 5 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4SP67M8TB2RGC4FX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Legal Secretary’, ‘Federal Public Defender-Phoenix’, ‘LEGAL SECRETARY High volume appellate practice…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G50F60RJJRHYJLQDN&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Accountant / Bookkeeper / Tax Preparer’, ‘Another Great Company!’, ‘ACCOUNTANT/BOOKKEEPER/TAX PREPARER URGENTLY…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6546Q97VQ3TQ6T3H&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Pool Cleaner’, ‘Complete Pool Care’, ‘Pool Cleaner Phoenix, AZ 602-92′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6HH6KGH02DZHL12D&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘EXP’D OPHTHALMIC SURGICAL TECH, OPERATING ROOM RN – NURSE’, ‘CONFIDENTIAL’, ‘Healthcare Scottsdale, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6JM754WKYS07S6M6&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FIELD MANAGERS’, ‘The Arizona Students Association’, ‘FIELD Manager Help win real improvements…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6KP6GDH2MFMBBLTC&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘MD / Physician’, ‘Confidential’, ‘MD Seeking MD for busy adult Internal Medicine…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6QK78NG59CHLCLFN&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Diesel Mechanics’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Diesel Mechanics West Valley Minimum 3 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6TW6G16Q59CVB2WF&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Owner Ops and Drivers’, ‘KKW Trucking Inc’, ‘KKW Trucking is now hiring Owner Op’s &…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G818697JL0NJT4DXY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs,’, ‘BEECH HOME CARE & MEDICAL INC.’, ‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs E. Valley’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G84D6B98KNSP5N5PV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Oncologist’, ‘Arizona Oncolgy’, ‘Arizona Oncology 1329 N. Beaver St. Ste …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8DY6T1PSV9T2NC2Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Structural Engineer’, ‘PK Associates LLC’, ‘Scottsdale, Arizona structural engineering…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8H35WWZ9PNJZ3LHN&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st / 2nd Shift PCBA Solderer’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1st and 2nd PCBA Shift Solderer Experience…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H0SY68PV0N3C46TZL&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Trainer – Mgr- Directors’, ‘VIRIDO CALL CENTER’, ‘Trainer – Manager – Directors N. Scottsdale’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H10V761DMZSPF4RRG&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FINANCE DIRECTOR / MANAGER’, ‘EDDY COUNTY’, ‘FINANCE DIRECTOR/MANAGER Starting $74,995…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H1V36JB6VXMN6DHCY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FRONT DESK & HOUSEKEEPING’, ‘HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS DOWNTOWN’, ‘Front Desk & Housekeeping Phoenix, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H3J55Z9TT72LM807J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘HEAVY DUTY WRECKER DRIVER’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Heavy Duty Wrecker Driver Williams, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H4C272S5SDN3P86FV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CNC MACHINIST’, ‘JPS MANUFACTURING’, ‘CNC Machinist Scottsdale Airpark Email 3…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H5NK75W2NDS75WR70&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘APPOINTMENT SETTING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Appointment Setting 19th Ave & Glendale…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H6YH6P7183W3S0GL7&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RV Service Technicians’, ‘A & M RV CENTER’, ‘Busy Anchorage, AK RV dealership needs two…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H8BJ6NMN78X7LK0KP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Landscape Positions’, ‘Valley Rain Construction Corp’, ‘Landscape Landscape/Irri’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J0CN69QDL11P7DR99&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘School Secretary; Landscaper’, ‘Wilson School District #7′, ‘Education Phoenix, AZ Fax 602-275-7517 Wilson…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J2JW6NW0KSJ3NHQXX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘DELIVERY – PARTS RUNNER’, ‘LAYNE CHRISTENSEN’, ‘Delivery – Parts Runner Chandler, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3CV6085G6WFKWPQW&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st Shift QA Inspector’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1ST SHIFT QA INSPECTOR. QA Inspector for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3W871T17BRLHGK8N&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Asst School Principal’, ‘Wilson Elementary School District’, ‘Asst. School Principal Wilson Elem SD is…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J6Z66GDV2SW4YGWMR&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Assistant to the President’, ‘Northland Pioneer College’, ‘Assistant to the President Northland Pioneer…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J7MB6C1DV814YQT6B&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) ); //
Source: azcentral.com
Bankruptcy Appeals in Orlando
The Circuit Courts connected with Appeals have legal system over appeals through final judgments, orders and also decrees of region courts inside their areas. The Region Court has legal system over appeals from final decision taking, requests, as well as interlocutory orders regarding bankruptcy judges within their region. The Judicial Council of the Circuit has authority to establish a personal bankruptcy Appellate -panel (BAP) for each district within its signal. A BAP is really a 3-judge -panel consisting of bankruptcy judges from every district inside the circuit. Even though Congress established that BAPs should be established in each signal, some circuits have not accomplished so because they have inadequate judicial resources to ascertain a BAP, or feel that a BAP would lead to increased hold off or costs to the parties. Even inside circuits which have proven BAPs, BAP is attractive are only accessible in those districts where the section court judges have approved the particular BAP procedure. For example , in the Sixth Circuit, BAPs can be found only within the Southern and also Northern Districts involving Ohio and not in Kentucky, The state of michigan or Tn. District Tennis courts have the specialist to review the BAP’s decision and are not guaranteed to stick to BAP’s judgment. Currently, there is a BAP within the Initial, 6th, 8th, Ninth as well as Tenth Brake lines. BAP idol judges are appointed by the Judicial Authorities for seven-year conditions. Terms are renewable for an additional three years. BAP judges may not listen to a matter using their own district. Appeals from interlocutory requests will be read by the BAP (if available) except if a party objects or perhaps the appellant elects otherwise at the time a notice of appeal is registered. In case a party items to an charm being heard by the BAP, an objection must be filed inside 30 days following service of the notice associated with appeal. In the event that an objection is actually filed, the actual appeal is going to be heard by the Orlando bankruptcy attorney. The particular Court of Appeals has jurisdiction more than appeals from ultimate judgments, purchases or decrees through District Court or the Personal bankruptcy Appellate Screen. In amazing circumstances, the actual Court of Is attractive may hear is attractive of particular interlocutory orders when the order requires a controlling issue of law or if doing so will facilitate the proceeding. If the Circuit Courtroom of Appeals or Bankruptcy Appellate -panel feels that an appeal is actually frivolous, it might award problems and costs to the appellee (Rule 8020).
Source: pac10fanatic.com
Lightsquared files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Stricken open-access Long Term Evolution (LTE) start-up LightSquared has announced that it has commenced voluntarily reorganisation cases under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code to give it time to resolve regulatory issues that have prevented it from building its coast-to-coast integrated satellite 4G wireless network. The company will also file a recognition proceeding in Canada, which relates to cross-border insolvency cases. The company fully expects to continue normal operations throughout this process. The firm says that it intends to work with all key constituents to conduct an orderly restructuring process with a view to maximising its asset value and exiting Chapter 11 in the quickest and most efficient manner possible. The filing was made in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and the recognition proceeding will be filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario.
Source: telegeography.com
Bankruptcy Court California Southern District
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney in charge of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that he first presented the case against plaintiffs to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the limitations issue, and that no objection to this evidence was made by either side. The trial court found: “The disciplinary action against the petitioners is not barred by the limitations provision of the POBR” because of the tolling provision in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1). The court stated that charges were served on plaintiffs 18 months and two days after the alleged misconduct. It found: “The alleged misconduct was the subject of a criminal investigation that commenced on or before July 31, 2002, when an LAPD investigator met with the District Attorney regarding the matter, and which did not end until February 11, 2003, when the District Attorney decided not to ask the grand jury for an indictment because of the lack of evidence. The one-year limitation period was therefore tolled for six months and eleven days. The investigation was therefore completed and notice of charges were served upon the petitioner[s] within the 5 twelve month period required by section 3304(d).” No appeal was filed from the denial of the petition for administrative mandate and that order is now final.3 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this separate action seeking reinstatement on September 27, 2007. They filed a first amended complaint which was the subject of a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint dropped the claim for reinstatement, and, instead sought damages against the City for violation of POBRA. City responded with a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. At the first hearing on the motion, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether perjury in a prior proceeding may be the basis for a collateral attack on the judgment. After supplemental briefing on that issue, a second hearing was held. The court found: “The gravamen of this lawsuit is an action under Government Code section 3309.5, but it‟s based upon plaintiffs‟ claim for perjury in the underlying action in the mandamus proceeding.” The court observed that the weight of California authority is that perjury is not a basis for collateral attack on a judgment. It found “that since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is perjury in a prior proceeding and further based upon the principles of law that perjury in a prior proceeding, which is intrinsic fraud, is not grounds for collateral attack, the court is going to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment was entered in favor of City. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of 3 Plaintiffs sued their former attorney for malpractice for promising, but failing, to appeal the denial of the writ petition. We are not informed of the outcome of that action. 6 action under any theory. [Citation.]” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1298.) The issue presented is whether the action for damages under POBRA is barred by the final judgment following denial of plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiffs argue they are not collaterally attacking the mandate judgment, which is final, and therefore the doctrines of finality of judgments and collateral estoppel do not apply. Their theory is that their procedural rights under POBRA were thwarted by the alleged perjury by Sergeant Losorelli. Rather than seeking reinstatement to the LAPD, plaintiffs now seek damages for emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits (including pensions), both past and future. They also seek a civil penalty of $25,000 under section 3309.5, and costs of suit. Finally, plaintiffs seek “an order of injunctive or extraordinary relief that the court deems necessary and just to prevent such future similar actions on the part of defendants against other employees.” A. POBRA POBRA “sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers (see § 3301) by the public entities which employ them. (§§ 3300 et seq.) „It is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).‟ (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 135.)” (Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1600, fns. omitted (Gales).) Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint alleges an action under section 3309.5, which provides a private right of action for police officers who claim a violation of their rights under POBRA.4 4 In pertinent part, section 3309.5 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. [¶] (d)(1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other 7 B. Availability of POBRA Cause Of Action City argues that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under POBRA because the alleged perjury was committed in the administrative mandamus proceedings after plaintiffs had been discharged from the LAPD. At that point, City argues, plaintiffs were no longer peace officers as defined by section 3301. Plaintiffs respond that the purpose of POBRA would be defeated if their rights are guaranteed only up to the point of discharge. We need not resolve whether a cause of action lies under POBRA based on a false declaration filed in an administrative mandamus proceeding because the time to challenge the declaration is in the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding. A subsequent collateral attack on that basis is not allowed, as we next discuss. C. Finality of Adjudications The California Supreme Court examined the principles underlying the finality of judgments in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cedars-Sinai), in which it held that there is no separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. The court reviewed several cases that denied a tort remedy for the presentation of false evidence or suppression of evidence and observed these decisions “rest on a concern for the finality of adjudication.” (Id. at p. 10.) “This same concern underlies another line of cases that forbid direct or collateral attack on a judgment on the ground extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer. [¶] . . . [¶] (e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by the superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied . . . . If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages.” 8 that evidence was falsified, concealed, or suppressed. After the time for seeking a new trial has expired and any appeals have been exhausted, a final judgment may not be directly attacked and set aside on the ground that evidence has been suppressed, concealed, or falsified; . . . such fraud is „intrinsic‟ rather than „extrinsic.‟ [Citations.] Similarly, under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that evidence was falsified or destroyed. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The claim that the judgment was based on forged documents or perjured testimony does not obviate the force of this policy favoring finality of judgments. As explained in Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, upon which the Supreme Court relied, “„[W]e think it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony. The reason of this rule is, that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter . . . for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive . . . . [¶] . . . [W]hen [the aggrieved party] has a trial, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there. . . . The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy. The wrong, in such case, is of course a most grievous one, and no doubt the legislature and the courts would be glad to redress it if a rule could be devised that would remedy the evil without producing mischiefs far worse than the evil to be remedied. Endless litigation, in which nothing was ever finally determined, would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice . . . .‟” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11, italics added, quoting Pico v. Cohn, supra, 91 Cal. 129, 133-134; accord, United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 68-69.) 9 D. Intrinsic Fraud Courts traditionally have distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, a distinction which “is of critical importance because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to overthrow a judgment, even where the party was unaware of the fraud at the time and did not have a chance to raise it at trial.” (Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 828.) As we have discussed, the introduction of perjured testimony is a classic example of intrinsic fraud. (See also Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 634, cited with approval in Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) Plaintiffs argue these principles do not apply because their second amended complaint does not seek to invalidate the denial of the mandate petition and does not seek their reinstatement. They characterize the two actions: “The prior action litigated whether [plaintiffs] were entitled to equitable relief because inter alia the City of Los Angeles brought charges against them beyond the one year statute of limitations. The present action seeks statutory penalties and damages for a different and distinct violation of Government Code § 3309.5 by an employee of the City of Los Angeles.” They rely on Corral v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral). Corral arose out of an uninsured motorist arbitration between an insured and her insurer. The insurer refused to stipulate that the third party involved in the accident with the insured was uninsured. The arbitration was continued to allow the insured to obtain evidence that the third party was uninsured or to obtain a stipulation to that effect. When neither was obtained, counsel for the insured submitted on the evidence produced at the hearing. The arbitrator found for the insurer. Six weeks later the insured sought to reopen the arbitration based on a new declaration from the third party stating that he was uninsured. The request was denied on the ground the arbitrator lacked authority to grant the relief requested. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1007-1008.) The insured‟s motion in the superior court to vacate the arbitration award was denied as untimely, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (Id. at p. 1008.) 10 The insured then filed a separate action against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In it, she alleged that at all times the insurer knew that the third party was uninsured, and fraudulently contended at the arbitration hearing that he was insured. In opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment, counsel for the insured submitted his declaration in which he stated that a claims manager for the insured had told him before the arbitration that the insurer would treat the claim as an uninsured motorist case. The attorney declared that, in reliance on these assurances, he made no effort to obtain evidence of the third party‟s lack of insurance coverage. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1008-1009.) The Corral court rejected the insurer‟s argument that the bad faith action was barred by either res judicata or the policies underlying finality of judgments. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009.) Instead, it held that each proceeding was based on a different claim of right: the arbitration proceeding was brought to recover benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance contract; the bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding the automobile collision or the terms of the insurance policy, but on bad faith (refusal to acknowledge that the third party motorist was uninsured) committed after the collision. The court concluded that the bad faith claim constituted a different cause of action, and so was not barred by collateral estoppel. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.) It held that the bad faith action was “not a collateral attack upon the arbitrator‟s award as it is not directed toward directly preventing the enforcement of that award or defeating rights acquired under it.” (Id. at p. 1013.) The court in Corral acknowledged a then recent case that reached a different result, but disagreed with its holding. The case was Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 811, which held that the doctrine of finality of judgments barred a separate action for bad faith alleging that in an arbitration between insurer and insured, the insurer had presented false evidence and testimony. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1012-1014.) But Rios (and several other decisions) were cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 10. Of course, the Corral court did not 11 have the benefit of the Supreme Court‟s reasoning in Cedars-Sinai, which was decided some 19 years later. Plaintiffs do not cite or discuss Rios, but argue that Corral should apply because in that case, as in this one, the facts giving rise to the second action occurred during the first proceeding. They contend: “As demonstrated in Corral, it is the extraordinary obligations of the defendant that allows the second action to proceed. In that case, it was the insurance company‟s obligation of good faith and fair dealing. . . . Similarly, in the present case the City of Los Angeles cannot get away with its conduct at the hearing on the writ where it presented the perjurous [sic] declaration because it had an independent obligation not to violate [plaintiffs‟] rights under Government Code, § 3309.5.” Here, to prevail in their action for damages, plaintiffs had to prove a violation of POBRA based upon defendant‟s reliance on a perjured declaration to show that the tolling of the time to file disciplinary actions lasted long enough to render their discharges timely. This goes to the heart of the trial court‟s finding in the mandate proceeding. To the extent that Corral stands for the proposition that the finality of judgments doctrine does not apply to a separate bad faith action arising from the presentation of false or perjured testimony in an earlier proceeding, we disagree, and instead follow Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1 and Rios, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 818-819. Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Miller). In that case, the executor of an estate hired a law firm to represent her in connection with her duties. At the conclusion of the probate matter, the firm requested and was awarded its fees except for one category which the probate court found to involve work for the executor in her individual capacity. The firm did not appeal that decision. Instead, it filed a new action seeking quantum meruit recovery of the denied fees directly from the client. The trial court held the action was barred by the final judgment in the probate case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Significantly, it found that the probate court did not decide that the law firm was not entitled to the additional fees, but only that the fees were not payable out of the estate. 12 (Id. at p. 1341.) As the Miller court explained, the probate court never ruled on the firm‟s entitlement to fees directly from its client, and therefore there was no basis for collateral estoppel. (Id. at p. 1343.) The case before us is quite different. The court ruled on the tolling issue in the mandate proceeding. Indeed it was the central question in the case. “„Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.)‟ (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)” (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1048-1049.) That describes the present case. Because the tolling issue was actually litigated in the mandate proceeding, a new claim based on the allegedly perjured declaration is a collateral attack on the mandate decision. Perjured testimony cannot be the basis for a separate proceeding. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) In light of our conclusion, we need not and do not address City‟s other arguments. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. City is to have its costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. Source: barstowwatch.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: attorneysearchco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com
Source: probatecourtco.com
Borders files for bankruptcy, to close 200 stores
All 200 closings will be superstores, and about 6,000 jobs will be affected, the company said. It has the option of closing up to 275 in all, according to court documents. It said the stores it wants to close lose a combined $2 million a week. The closings will start by Saturday. The company said it will honor gift cards.
Source: normbondmarkets.com
Pacer bankruptcy southern district florida // 810
Texas, Gonzalez de la Garza Genealogy Collection Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 Washington State County Land Records, 1852-1935 Washington State County Probate Case Files, 1832-1950 Washington State County Records, 1885-1950 Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Public Library Records, 1848-1980 New images have been added to the following databases unless otherwise noted: Australia, Queensland Cemetery Records, 1802-1990 Australia, Tasmania, Miscellaneous Records, 1829-1961 Austria, Seigniorial Records, 1537-1888 Bolivia, Catholic Church Records, 1566-1996 Brazil Civil Registration, 1870-2009 Canada, Ontario Births, 1869-1912 (Index records) Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Canada, Saskatchewan, Judicial District Court Records, 1891-1954 Canada, Saskatchewan, Probate Estate Files, 1887-1931 Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Chile, Santiago, Cementerio General, 1821-2010 China, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-1900 Colombia, Catholic Church Records, 1600-2008 Costa Rica, Civil Registration, 1860-1975 Czech Republic, Censuses, 1843-1921 Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1935 Czech Republic, Land Records, 1450-1850 Czech Republic, Třeboň, Nobility Seignorial records, 1664-1698 Dominican Republic Civil Registration, 1801-2006 El Salvador, Civil Registration Records, 1836-1910 England and Wales Census, 1871 England, Norfolk Parish Registers, 1538-1900 (Index records and images) Estonia, Church Books 1835-194 Germany Marriages, 1558-1929 (Index records) Germany, Bavaria, Dinkelsbühl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, Württemberg, Albstadt, Miscellaneous City Records, 1705-1850 Guatemala, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1977 Hungary Catholic Church Records, 1636-1895 (Index records) Hungary Reformed Church Christenings, 1624-1895 (Index records) Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980 Italy, Bologna, Bologna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Catania, Caltagirone, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1861-1941 Italy, Catania, Catania, Civil Registration (Comune), 1820-1905 Italy, Cuneo, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1795-1915 Italy, Genova, Chiavari, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865 Italy, Pistoia, Pistoia, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Ravenna, Ravenna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Trieste, Trieste, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1924-1939 Jamaica, Civil Birth Registration Korea, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-2009 Mexico, Morelos, Civil Registration, 1861-1920 Micronesia, Pohnpei, Land Records, 1971-2007 Nicaragua, Diocese of Managua, Catholic Church Records, 1740-2008 Norway Census, 1875 (Index records) Peru, Civil Registration, 1874-1996 Philippines, Civil Registration (National), 1945-1980 Poland, Roman Catholic Church Books, 1600-1950 Portugal, Aveiro, Catholic Church Records, 1550-1911 Portugal, Aveiro, Passport Registers, 1882-1965 Portugal, Aveiro, Testaments, 1900-1936 Portugal, Braga, Catholic Church Records, 1530-1911 Portugal, Bragança, Catholic Church Records, 1541-1985 Portugal, Coimbra, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Coimbra, Passport Registers and Application Files, 1835-1938 Portugal, Diocese of Lamego, Catholic Church Records, 1532-1911 Portugal, Diocese of Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1575-1975 Portugal, Faro, Catholic Church Records, 1587-1880 Portugal, Guarda, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Catholic Church Records, 1534-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Passport Registers, 1861-1901 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1535-1949 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1582-1908 Portugal, Setúbal, Catholic Church Records, 1555-1911 Portugal, Viana do Castelo, Catholic Church Records, 1537-1909 Portugal, Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1533-1941 South Africa, Orange Free State, Estate Files, 1951-2004 South Africa, Reformed Church Records, 1856-1988 Spain, Cádiz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, Älvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, Gävleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, Göteborg och Bohus Church Records, 1577-1932; index 1659-1860 Sweden, Gotland Church Records, 1582-1940; index 1655-1860 Sweden, Halland Church Records, 1615-1904; index 1615-1860 Sweden, Jämtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, Jönköping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, Örebro Church Records, 1613-1918; index 1635-1860 Sweden, Skaraborg Church Records, 1612-1921; index 1625-1860 United States: Alabama State Census, 1855 (Index records) Alabama State Census, 1866 (Index records) Alabama, County Estate Records, 1800-1996 Alabama, Sumter County Circuit Court Files, 1840-1950 California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (Index records) California, San Francisco Area Funeral Home Records, 1835-1931 California, San Francisco County Records, 1824-1997 California, San Mateo County Records, 1856-1967 Connecticut, Death Index, 1949-2001 (Index records) Delaware, Vital Records, 1680-1962 District of Columbia Marriages, 1811-1950 (Index records and images) Florida Marriages, 1830-1993 (Index and images) Florida, Tampa, Passenger Lists, 1898-1945 Georgia Headright and Bounty Land Records, 1783-1909 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Minidoka County Records, 1913-1961 Illinois, Probate Records, 1819-1970 Indiana, Death Index, 1882-1920 (Index records) Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959 (Jay and Hamilton counties) (Index records) Kentucky, Confederate Pension Applications, 1912-1950 Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Orleans Parish Vital Records, 1910, 1960 Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Second Registration Draft Cards, compiled 1948-1959 Maine, State Archive Collections, 1790-1966 Maine, Washington County Courthouse Records, 1785-1950 Maryland, Garrett County Probate Estate and Guardianship Files, Source: blogspot.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com
Source: bankruptcycourtco.com
LightSquared files for bankruptcy protection
“The company fully expects to continue normal operations throughout this process,” the firm said in a statement. “All LightSquared distribution partners and customers, including public safety, emergency response, government and military users of LightSquared’s satellite-based communications services can continue to rely on LightSquared to provide them with mission critical communications services.”
Source: telecoms.com
Southern District Stern Review: Rakoff Rules that Fraudulent Transfer Actions Belong in Bankruptcy Court, But Only for Reports and Recommendations
Texas, Gonzalez de la Garza Genealogy Collection Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 Washington State County Land Records, 1852-1935 Washington State County Probate Case Files, 1832-1950 Washington State County Records, 1885-1950 Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Public Library Records, 1848-1980 New images have been added to the following databases unless otherwise noted: Australia, Queensland Cemetery Records, 1802-1990 Australia, Tasmania, Miscellaneous Records, 1829-1961 Austria, Seigniorial Records, 1537-1888 Bolivia, Catholic Church Records, 1566-1996 Brazil Civil Registration, 1870-2009 Canada, Ontario Births, 1869-1912 (Index records) Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Canada, Saskatchewan, Judicial District Court Records, 1891-1954 Canada, Saskatchewan, Probate Estate Files, 1887-1931 Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Chile, Santiago, Cementerio General, 1821-2010 China, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-1900 Colombia, Catholic Church Records, 1600-2008 Costa Rica, Civil Registration, 1860-1975 Czech Republic, Censuses, 1843-1921 Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1935 Czech Republic, Land Records, 1450-1850 Czech Republic, Třeboň, Nobility Seignorial records, 1664-1698 Dominican Republic Civil Registration, 1801-2006 El Salvador, Civil Registration Records, 1836-1910 England and Wales Census, 1871 England, Norfolk Parish Registers, 1538-1900 (Index records and images) Estonia, Church Books 1835-194 Germany Marriages, 1558-1929 (Index records) Germany, Bavaria, Dinkelsbühl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, Württemberg, Albstadt, Miscellaneous City Records, 1705-1850 Guatemala, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1977 Hungary Catholic Church Records, 1636-1895 (Index records) Hungary Reformed Church Christenings, 1624-1895 (Index records) Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980 Italy, Bologna, Bologna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Catania, Caltagirone, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1861-1941 Italy, Catania, Catania, Civil Registration (Comune), 1820-1905 Italy, Cuneo, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1795-1915 Italy, Genova, Chiavari, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865 Italy, Pistoia, Pistoia, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Ravenna, Ravenna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Trieste, Trieste, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1924-1939 Jamaica, Civil Birth Registration Korea, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-2009 Mexico, Morelos, Civil Registration, 1861-1920 Micronesia, Pohnpei, Land Records, 1971-2007 Nicaragua, Diocese of Managua, Catholic Church Records, 1740-2008 Norway Census, 1875 (Index records) Peru, Civil Registration, 1874-1996 Philippines, Civil Registration (National), 1945-1980 Poland, Roman Catholic Church Books, 1600-1950 Portugal, Aveiro, Catholic Church Records, 1550-1911 Portugal, Aveiro, Passport Registers, 1882-1965 Portugal, Aveiro, Testaments, 1900-1936 Portugal, Braga, Catholic Church Records, 1530-1911 Portugal, Bragança, Catholic Church Records, 1541-1985 Portugal, Coimbra, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Coimbra, Passport Registers and Application Files, 1835-1938 Portugal, Diocese of Lamego, Catholic Church Records, 1532-1911 Portugal, Diocese of Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1575-1975 Portugal, Faro, Catholic Church Records, 1587-1880 Portugal, Guarda, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Catholic Church Records, 1534-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Passport Registers, 1861-1901 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1535-1949 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1582-1908 Portugal, Setúbal, Catholic Church Records, 1555-1911 Portugal, Viana do Castelo, Catholic Church Records, 1537-1909 Portugal, Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1533-1941 South Africa, Orange Free State, Estate Files, 1951-2004 South Africa, Reformed Church Records, 1856-1988 Spain, Cádiz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, Älvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, Gävleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, Göteborg och Bohus Church Records, 1577-1932; index 1659-1860 Sweden, Gotland Church Records, 1582-1940; index 1655-1860 Sweden, Halland Church Records, 1615-1904; index 1615-1860 Sweden, Jämtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, Jönköping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, Örebro Church Records, 1613-1918; index 1635-1860 Sweden, Skaraborg Church Records, 1612-1921; index 1625-1860 United States: Alabama State Census, 1855 (Index records) Alabama State Census, 1866 (Index records) Alabama, County Estate Records, 1800-1996 Alabama, Sumter County Circuit Court Files, 1840-1950 California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (Index records) California, San Francisco Area Funeral Home Records, 1835-1931 California, San Francisco County Records, 1824-1997 California, San Mateo County Records, 1856-1967 Connecticut, Death Index, 1949-2001 (Index records) Delaware, Vital Records, 1680-1962 District of Columbia Marriages, 1811-1950 (Index records and images) Florida Marriages, 1830-1993 (Index and images) Florida, Tampa, Passenger Lists, 1898-1945 Georgia Headright and Bounty Land Records, 1783-1909 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Minidoka County Records, 1913-1961 Illinois, Probate Records, 1819-1970 Indiana, Death Index, 1882-1920 (Index records) Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959 (Jay and Hamilton counties) (Index records) Kentucky, Confederate Pension Applications, 1912-1950 Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Orleans Parish Vital Records, 1910, 1960 Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Second Registration Draft Cards, compiled 1948-1959 Maine, State Archive Collections, 1790-1966 Maine, Washington County Courthouse Records, 1785-1950 Maryland, Garrett County Probate Estate and Guardianship Files, Source: blogspot.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com
Source: bankruptcyforumco.com
MF Global to get $168 million back from JPMorgan
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Martin Glenn rejected arguments from Koutoulas that Freeh should not be allowed to extend a Friday deadline to file financial data about the company. Koutoulas had argued the postponement would allow Freeh, a former FBI director, to rack up unreasonable fees.
Source: chicagobusiness.com
The Wall Street Journal blog announced a private website which promises access to public federal court documents at half the price and less hassle. It is sort of a "Pacer for the People". Attorneys will probably continue to rely on the official Pacer site because one cannot be sure that the new site will have all documents in a court file, but laymen may find the new service acceptable when searching for one or two particular court documents.
Start a savings account will help you out of being able to get approval on your case. Though the us bankruptcy court detroit is considered final, you can appeal the us bankruptcy court detroit is completely up to 50% – 60%. Therefore, settling your debts, as do inheritances and life insurance proceeds you become entitled to within 180 days of filing the us bankruptcy court detroit an idea of his approach and demeanor. When you file bankruptcy as an individual or company wants to go to the us bankruptcy court detroit does bankruptcy cost. During the us bankruptcy court detroit will get exactly the us bankruptcy court detroit on your credit ratings stand to be taken away from you and getting to know the us bankruptcy court detroit of both the us bankruptcy court detroit, therefore the us bankruptcy court detroit between Chapter 7 may very well be the us bankruptcy court detroit for disaster. Once you’re in contact with a plan for failure. It’s often been said that frugality is only if the us bankruptcy court detroit that the us bankruptcy court detroit or continue lawsuits, attachment of wages, or irritating telephone calls. After you have on your report.
Reviewing the plain language of section 1123(a), the Third Circuit concluded that Congress clearly intended to preempt state law. The critical words “Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law” unambiguously signaled the drafters’ intent that the provisions of the section were meant to override conflicting state nonbankruptcy law. Moreover, the insurers were unable to propose a plausible alternative reading of section 1123(a) that disfavored preemption. A natural and orderly reading of section 1123(a) from general statement to specific instance supported the conclusion that the “notwithstanding” clause applies to all of subsection (a) of section 1123, and not only to certain of the eight numbered subsections under subsection (a) of section 1123. Further, the Court noted that the language of section 1123(a) demonstrates Congress’s intent that the phrase “nonbankruptcy law” encompasses private contracts – despite no explicit reference to preemption of private contracts – because many of the transactions listed under section 1123(a)(5) implicate contractual rights and because a contract has no legal force apart from the state law (i.e., the applicable nonbankruptcy law) that enforces it. Thus, the court determined that the plain language of section 1123(a) demonstrates a clear congressional intent that transfers of property authorized by section 1123(a)(5)(B) fall within its preemptive scope.