Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2013/03/14/
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 06:47:40
Document Index: 467688146

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 362', '§ 541', '§ 550', '§ 548', '§ 541', '§ 541', '§ 266', '§ 266', '§ 1291']

March 14, 2013 Archives - CBA CLE Legal Connection
Citizen Lawyer John T. Baker Heads New CAMP Program
March 14, 2013 By Susan Hoyt 1 Comment
On February 5, 2013, the Colorado State Judicial Branch named John T. Baker the first director of the newly-developed Colorado Attorney Mentoring Program (CAMP). I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. Baker about his new role for CBA-CLE Legal Connection; our conversation is here.
Congratulations on being named director of the new Colorado Attorney Mentoring Program!
Thank you, it’s really an honor. When I first heard about the program, I thought it sounded like something I would like to do, and I was delighted that they selected me as the first director. I am strongly committed to public service and this is my first time working for the public, so it’s a great opportunity.
Filed Under: Community Tagged With: ethics, mentor, mentoring, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, professional responsibility
Tenth Circuit: Allegedly Fraudulently Transferred Property is Not Part of the Bankruptcy Estate Until Recovered
March 14, 2013 By Heidi Ray Leave a Comment
The Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in Rajala v. Gardner on Tuesday, March 12, 2013.
Plaintiff-Appellant Eric Rajala, Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Generation Resources Holding Company, LLC (GRHC), appeals from the district court’s order granting motions to distribute approximately $9 million held in escrow. This amount represents part of the purchase price of a wind power project allegedly developed by GRHC. In a nutshell, the Trustee claims that the Debtor, GRHC, has been left with $5 million in debt while the individual Defendants-Appellees and their affiliated entities received some $13 million in proceeds from the sale of several wind power projects, unburdened by the debt.
At issue was what constitutes property of the bankruptcy estate and whether allegedly fraudulently transferred property is subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay before a trustee recovers the property through an avoidance action. The district court held that allegedly fraudulently transferred property is not part of the bankruptcy estate until recovered and therefore is beyond the reach of the automatic stay. The Trustee appealed.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), the filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition automatically stays “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate . . . or to exercise control over property of the estate.” Section 541(a)(1) defines property of the estate to include “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case,” and § 541(a)(3) also includes in the estate “[a]ny interest in property that the trustee recovers under section . . . 550.” Under § 550, a trustee may recover transferred property, “to the extent that a transfer is avoided under section . . . 548.” In turn, § 548 enables the trustee to avoid fraudulent transfers.
After reviewing a split among the circuits on this issue, the plain meaning of the statute led the Tenth Circuit to conclude that the bankruptcy estate does not include fraudulently transferred property until that property is recovered. Interpreting § 541(a)(1) to include fraudulently transferred property would render § 541(a)(3) meaningless with respect to property recovered in a fraudulent transfer action.
The Tenth Circuit held that fraudulently transferred property is not part of the bankruptcy estate until recovered.
Tenth Circuit: Court Lacked Jurisdiction in Case About Leasing of Federal Land Under the Administrative-Remand Rule
The Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in Western Energy Alliance v. Salazar on Friday, March 8, 2013.
This litigation concerned whether the Mineral Leasing Act (“the Act” or “MLA”) requires the Secretary of the Interior (“the Secretary”) to issue leases for parcels of land to the highest bidding energy company within sixty days of payment to the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). Appellants (collectively “Energy Companies”) brought suit seeking to compel the Secretary to issue 118 pending leases on which they were the high bidders and more than sixty days had passed since they had paid BLM in full. The district court construed 30 U.S.C. § 266(b)(1)(A) as imposing a mandate on the Secretary to decide whether to issue such pending oil and gas leases within sixty days of payment, and ordered BLM to make such decisions regarding the still pending leases of Energy Companies within thirty days. Energy Companies appeal the district court’s order and continue to assert that § 266(b)(1)(A) requires the Secretary to issue such pending leases within sixty days rather than merely make a decision on whether the leases will be issued.
In addition to the merits, Intervenors (Conservation Groups) asserted that the administrative-remand rule barred jurisdiction over Energy Companies’ appeal. The Tenth Circuit agreed.
It is well settled law that a remand by a district court to an administrative agency for further proceedings is ordinarily not appealable because it is not a final decision. This general principle has been called the “administrative-remand rule.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that issuing specific leases like the leases in this case fell into the category of quasi-adjudicative agency action. In short, this case fell under the administrative-remand rule.
The Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s order was not a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the administrative-remand rule, the Tenth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction and DISMISSED the appeal.
Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: 10th Circuit, administrative law, oil and gas law, real estate law
Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/13/13
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and three unpublished opinions.
Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/12/13
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and ten unpublished opinions.
Brown v. Sedgwick County Sheriffs Office
Lundgren v. Colvin
Layton v. The Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County
Danielson-Holland v. Standley and Associates
HB 13-1154: Creating New Article in Criminal Code for Crimes Against Pregnant Women
On January 28, 2013, Rep. Mike Foote and Sen. Pat Steadman introduced HB 13-1154 – Concerning Crimes Against Pregnant Women. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill creates a new article for offenses against pregnant women. The new offenses are unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the first degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the second degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the third degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the fourth degree, vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and careless driving resulting in unlawful termination of a pregnancy. The bill makes it clear that a court can impose consecutive sentences for a violation of this act and other associated convictions. The bill excludes from prosecution medical care for which the mother provided consent. The bill does not confer the status of “person” upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth.
The bill repeals the criminal abortion statutes. The bill makes conforming amendments. On March 8, the Appropriations Committee amended the bill and sent it to the full House for consideration on 2nd Reading.
Since this summary, the bill was laid over for Second Reading.
Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: Colorado Legislature, criminal law, HB 13-1154, sentencing