<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; Chapter 11</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/chapter-11/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:49:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy filings continue to decline&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/07/bankruptcy-filings-continue-to-decline-4/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/07/bankruptcy-filings-continue-to-decline-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 04:03:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 12]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CHAPTER 13]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 7]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=91200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – In a continuation of the downward trend that began in 2011, bankruptcy filings in federal courts declined during calendar year 2012, according to data released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.</p> <p>According to the data, 1,221,091 bankruptcies were filed in 2012, a 13 percent drop from <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/07/bankruptcy-filings-continue-to-decline-4/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/07/bankruptcy-filings-continue-to-decline-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chapter 11 debtors subject to ‘absolute priority rule’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute priority rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code did not exempt individual Chapter 11 debtors from the application of the absolute priority rule, the 10th Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The absolute priority rule bars junior claimants, including debtors, from retaining any interest in property when a dissenting class of <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/chapter-11-debtors-subject-to-absolute-priority-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCourts return to court in renewed divorce battle&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/15/mccourts-return-to-court-in-renewed-divorce-battle/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/15/mccourts-return-to-court-in-renewed-divorce-battle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank McCourt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Los Angeles Dodgers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Major League Baseball]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McCourt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[postnuptial agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=88493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-10501" title="divorce4" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20091015162435/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/11/divorce4.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />Less than one year after Frank and Jamie McCourt reached a settlement in their contentious divorce proceedings, the couple is back in court.</p> <p>After <a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/10/20/mccourts-settle-ownership-of-dodgers/"><strong>reaching a settlement</strong></a> last November, Jamie McCourt has filed a new motion seeking to set aside <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/15/mccourts-return-to-court-in-renewed-divorce-battle/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/15/mccourts-return-to-court-in-renewed-divorce-battle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Retail sales taxes nondischargeable in bankruptcy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/24/retail-sales-taxes-nondischargeable-in-bankruptcy/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/24/retail-sales-taxes-nondischargeable-in-bankruptcy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:44:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=86319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The owner of a restaurant was not entitled to a discharge of debt for unpaid retail sales taxes when he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>When the debtor filed for bankruptcy, the state of New Jersey filed a claim in the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/24/retail-sales-taxes-nondischargeable-in-bankruptcy/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/24/retail-sales-taxes-nondischargeable-in-bankruptcy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy bar takes aim at ‘unfair’ fee proposal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/28/bankruptcy-bar-takes-aim-at-unfair-fee-proposal/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/28/bankruptcy-bar-takes-aim-at-unfair-fee-proposal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Frank</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[billing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Office for U.S. Trustees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=85653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A controversial fee proposal from the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees is receiving a cold reception from bankruptcy lawyers, with some even threatening to leave the practice if the policy is implemented.</p> <p>Under the plan announced by the U.S. Department of Justice last winter, law firms and attorneys applying for <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/28/bankruptcy-bar-takes-aim-at-unfair-fee-proposal/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/06/28/bankruptcy-bar-takes-aim-at-unfair-fee-proposal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class claims against Owens Corning weren’t discharged&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/class-claims-against-owens-corning-werent-discharged/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/class-claims-against-owens-corning-werent-discharged/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 15:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of warranty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strict liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A class claims seeking damages for alleged defects in Owens Corning roofing shingles were not discharged by the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.</p> <p>The two named plaintiffs in the case both had roofing shingles manufactured by Owens Corning installed on <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/class-claims-against-owens-corning-werent-discharged/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/22/class-claims-against-owens-corning-werent-discharged/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos policies can be assigned in bankruptcy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/asbestos-policies-can-be-assigned-in-bankruptcy/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/asbestos-policies-can-be-assigned-in-bankruptcy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84094</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Liability insurers could not enforce anti-assignment clauses in their policies when their policyholder sought relief in bankruptcy from asbestos claims, the 3rd Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The debtor, Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of automobile parts. In 2001, the debtor filed for Chapter <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/asbestos-policies-can-be-assigned-in-bankruptcy/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/asbestos-policies-can-be-assigned-in-bankruptcy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justices tackle credit-bidding in bankruptcy ‘cramdown’ plan&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/23/justices-tackle-credit-bidding-in-bankruptcy-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/23/justices-tackle-credit-bidding-in-bankruptcy-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit bid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secured creditor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/23/justices-tackle-credit-bidding-in-bankruptcy-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-plan/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-83945" title="auction-paddle" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/04/auction-paddle.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court took up a complicated bankruptcy case Monday, parsing the language of the Bankruptcy Code to determine if a Chapter 11 debtor must give a secured creditor the right to credit bid items <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/23/justices-tackle-credit-bidding-in-bankruptcy-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-plan/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/23/justices-tackle-credit-bidding-in-bankruptcy-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Automatic stay for bankrupt party doesn’t apply to co-defendants&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/23/automatic-stay-for-bankrupt-party-doesn%e2%80%99t-apply-to-co-defendants/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/23/automatic-stay-for-bankrupt-party-doesn%e2%80%99t-apply-to-co-defendants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automatic stay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint and several liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/23/automatic-stay-for-bankrupt-party-doesn%e2%80%99t-apply-to-co-defendants/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An insolvent asbestos defendant’s bankruptcy filing does not stay all litigation involving solvent co-defendants, the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against a number of defendants based on their decedents’ exposure to asbestos particles. They sought to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable.</p> <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/23/automatic-stay-for-bankrupt-party-doesn%e2%80%99t-apply-to-co-defendants/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/23/automatic-stay-for-bankrupt-party-doesn%e2%80%99t-apply-to-co-defendants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justices to decide ‘cramdown’ rights of secured lender&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/12/justices-to-decide-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-rights-of-secured-lender/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/12/justices-to-decide-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-rights-of-secured-lender/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 11]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cramdown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/12/justices-to-decide-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-rights-of-secured-lender/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a Chapter 11 debtor may pursue a reorganization plan that proposes to sell encumbered assets at auction free and clear of liens without allowing a secured lender to bid its credit.</p> <p>The Court will review a decision by the 7th Circuit that a <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/12/justices-to-decide-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-rights-of-secured-lender/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/12/12/justices-to-decide-%e2%80%98cramdown%e2%80%99-rights-of-secured-lender/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
