"The chief financial officer of a small Illinois city -- a woman who had a lavish lifestyle that included a .1 million motor home and a horse farm -- is under arrest, accused of embezzling million from the city.

Rita Crundwell, 58, was arrested Tuesday at City Hall in Dixon, Ill., the Chicago Tribune reported, and later charged with wire fraud."

Here is a link: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11265755-citys-finance-chief-accused-of-looting-30-million-lifestyle-included-21-million-motorhome?lite

Michael

Michael

Sapp’s .45 million in assets includes 240 pairs of Jordan athletic shoes worth almost ,500, a ,250 watch and a lion skin rug worth ,200. He also reported losing his 2002 Super Bowl ring with the Bucs and his 1991 national championship ring from the University of Miami.

The court documents were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Fort Lauderdale on March 30. TMZ.com first reported the filing. A phone message and e-mail left Saturday with his attorney, Chad Pugatch, were not immediately returned.

Sapp’s average monthly income is 5,881, according to the filings, and includes ,000 for a final contract payment with Showtime, ,000 for an appearance with CCA Sports and ,675 as an advance for a book deal. His contract with the NFL Network ends in August, the filings show, and it was unknown if the contract will be renewed.

Here is a link: http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/11800213-419/warren-sapp-files-for-bankruptcy-assets-include-240-pairs-of-jordans.html

Michael

Robert Prechter talks to Fox Business News host Neil Cavuto about his latest research on how social mood affects presidential re-election bids. In the interview, he reveals what is the most reliable indicator in predicting incumbent re-election.

Many States including Texas have “Door Closing” statutes. Texas’ statute is T.B.O.C. § 9.051.  These provisions restrict foreign entities that: 1) are required to register and 2) have failed to register, from maintaining an action in a court of that state.  That is, these entities may not be plaintiffs until they comply with the statute.  The foreign entities may, of course, defend themselves if sued, but may be denied the opportunity to make counterclaims until they are in compliance.

Of course, the tricky part of the statute is that entities are only required to register if the entity “transacts business in this state.”  While a seemingly innocuous definition, the legislature has deemed it necessary to define it in the negative, by listing a non-exclusive set of activities deemed not to be “transacting business in this state.”  See T.B.O.C. §9.251 for the full list.

You might say, “Hey Mike, why are you talking about this?  Aren’t you a bankruptcy lawyer silly?  Why does this concern you?”  Well, I’ll tell you.  It seems to me that these state law provisions could exclude plaintiffs in bankruptcy court from either maintaining an adversary or perhaps even being deemed to have an allowed claim in a bankruptcy case.

It is long accepted by case law that these “Door Closing” statutes are valid as precluding foreign entities from filing in federal district court as an end run around the registration requirements. See Baxter v. Aguilar, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72053 (W.D. Tex. 2007); Kutka, 568 F.Supp. 1527 (S.D. Tex. 1983); Normandie Oil Corp. v. Oil Trading Co., 139 Tex. 402 (1942); Motor Supply Co. v. General Outdoor Advertising Co., 44 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Civ. App. – Texarkana 1931, no writ).  The question then, is would this also apply in bankruptcy court?  It does.  As you may imagine, there is very little case law on the topic.  A case styled In re Cutler-Owens International LTD., 55 B.R. 291 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) well illustrates how to use a failure to register as a shield or a weapon in bankruptcy court.  That case holds that construing § 558 (which preserves all defenses to the estate) and § 502(b) (which governs allowance or disallowance of a claim) of the Bankruptcy Code together mean that a “Door Closing” statute is a personal defense which may be asserted and that the “Door Closing” statute renders the entities claims unenforceable.  That means the court is precluded from determining even if the claim ought to be treated as an allowed claim.

With the case law on this topic still developing it seems to be a ripe area for argument should the right facts and parties present themselves.

"A Primer: Understanding Derivatives

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar.

She realizes that a good deal of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, cannot afford to have all the drinks they would like to have at her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She requires them to pay on each visit only for their first drink, but not for any drinks thereafter."

For the rest of this article which is really quite impressive see this link: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

Michael

Quote:  The Dow Jones Industrial Average pierced the 13000 level for the first time in almost four years, but traded largely below the mark and ended the day in positive territory.

The Dow broke 13000 before noon on Tuesday and a handful of other times throughout the day, but ended the day at 12966, up 16 points, or 0.1%. The Dow last traded at the 13000 level on an intraday basis on May 20, 2008.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index finished up one point, or 0.1%, at 1362. The Nasdaq Composite closed down 3.2 points, or 0.1%, at 2949.

Here is a link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577236783377030236.html

Michael

Many States including Texas have “Door Closing” statutes. Texas’ statute is T.B.O.C. § 9.051.  These provisions restrict foreign entities that: 1) are required to register and 2) have failed to register, from maintaining an action in a court of that state.  That is, these entities may not be plaintiffs until they comply with the statute.  The foreign entities may, of course, defend themselves if sued, but may be denied the opportunity to make counterclaims until they are in compliance.

Of course, the tricky part of the statute is that entities are only required to register if the entity “transacts business in this state.”  While a seemingly innocuous definition, the legislature has deemed it necessary to define it in the negative, by listing a non-exclusive set of activities deemed not to be “transacting business in this state.”  See T.B.O.C. §9.251 for the full list.

You might say, “Hey Mike, why are you talking about this?  Aren’t you a bankruptcy lawyer silly?  Why does this concern you?”  Well, I’ll tell you.  It seems to me that these state law provisions could exclude plaintiffs in bankruptcy court from either maintaining an adversary or perhaps even being deemed to have an allowed claim in a bankruptcy case.

It is long accepted by case law that these “Door Closing” statutes are valid as precluding foreign entities from filing in federal district court as an end run around the registration requirements. See Baxter v. Aguilar, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72053 (W.D. Tex. 2007); Kutka, 568 F.Supp. 1527 (S.D. Tex. 1983); Normandie Oil Corp. v. Oil Trading Co., 139 Tex. 402 (1942); Motor Supply Co. v. General Outdoor Advertising Co., 44 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Civ. App. – Texarkana 1931, no writ).  The question then, is would this also apply in bankruptcy court?  It does.  As you may imagine, there is very little case law on the topic.  A case styled In re Cutler-Owens International LTD., 55 B.R. 291 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) well illustrates how to use a failure to register as a shield or a weapon in bankruptcy court.  That case holds that construing § 558 (which preserves all defenses to the estate) and § 502(b) (which governs allowance or disallowance of a claim) of the Bankruptcy Code together mean that a “Door Closing” statute is a personal defense which may be asserted and that the “Door Closing” statute renders the entities claims unenforceable.  That means the court is precluded from determining even if the claim ought to be treated as an allowed claim.

With the case law on this topic still developing it seems to be a ripe area for argument should the right facts and parties present themselves.