Keesal, Young & Logan represents a number of clients in bankruptcy matters across the United States. Our practice generally focuses on creditors’ rights, and we have represented clients in contested matters and adversary proceedings in cases arising under all chapters of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Our experience includes:
- Filing and obtaining payment on proofs of claim (including requests for administrative priority claims), and opposing objections to claims.
- Filing motions for and obtaining relief from the automatic stay to allow pursuit of collection and foreclosure actions.
- Filing and prosecuting complaints for non-dischargeability and/or to deny a debtor’s discharge entirely to allow the collection of debts following bankruptcy.
- Filing and prosecuting objections to claims by debtors that certain property is “exempt” from collection efforts.
- Defending “turnover” and “fraudulent conveyance” actions to recover alleged property of the bankruptcy estate transferred prior to the bankruptcy.
- Defending attempts by debtors to extinguish liens of the firm’s clients on real or personal property.
- Advising clients with respect to safely structuring ongoing business relationships with customers or vendors who are in or near bankruptcy.
- Advising clients regarding effect of recent amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, including those made as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
In addition to appearing in the United States Bankruptcy Court, we have represented clients at the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Our published decisions include:
- In re Weisberg, 136 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that securities broker’s liquidation of securities in account of bankrupt client for the purpose of meeting margin calls did not violate the automatic stay and margin payments could not be recovered by trustee).
- In re Superior Stamp & Coin Co., Inc., 223 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that earmarking doctrine provided defense to debtor’s preference action and did not allow debtor to avoid portion of payments funded by bank loans specifically made for purpose of paying specific creditor).
- In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 629 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (holding that Court could not exercise its equitable power to enter “necessary or appropriate” orders to enjoin implementation of California Public Utilities Commission ratemaking order against PG&E).
- In re Enron Corp., 296 B.R. 505 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (holding that bankruptcy court could exercise “related to” jurisdiction over case brought by note purchasers against banks and securities broker-dealers who distributed the notes for alleged misstatements made in offering materials, and that court could remand cause of action in its discretion).