#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser FW: Bankruptcy Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014

#realestate, #cre, #commercialappraiser Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell424-218-9580 Skype WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com ;Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiserresume2013locked.pdf ;Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://commercialappraiser.typepad.com/blog/ ; http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ ;The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy ; We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 6:05 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Bankruptcy Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.
Today on Verdict

The Ninth Circuit, in SmithKline v. Abbott Labs, Bars Lawyers From Removing Gay/Lesbian Jurors
Vikram David Amar & Alan E. Brownstein
In Part One of this two-part series of columns, Justia columnist Vikram David Amar and Justia guest columnist Alan Brownstein, both U.C., Davis law professors, discuss whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for a lawyer to “strike” (that is, remove) individuals from a jury panel on account of their sexual orientation. Read Article

Weekly Opinion SummariesBankruptcy
Weekly Summaries Distributed January 31, 2014 · Starr Int'l Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Bankruptcy, Business Law, Corporate Compliance, Government & Administrative Law, Professional Malpractice & Ethics
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals· In re: Emoral, Inc.
Bankruptcy, Injury Law
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals· Bank of New York Mellon v. GC Merchandise Mart, L.L.C., et al.
Banking, Bankruptcy, Contracts
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals· Clark v. Zwanziger
Bankruptcy, Business Law, Labor & Employment Law
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals· Muccio v. Hunt
Bankruptcy, Business Law, Contracts, Injury Law
Arkansas Supreme Court

Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia

Starr Int'l Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkCourt: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-5022Opinion Date: January 29, 2014Judge: Walker, Jr. Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Business Law, Corporate Compliance, Government & Administrative Law, Professional Malpractice & Ethics Starr, AIG's former principal shareholder, filed suit against the FRBNY for breach of fiduciary duty in its rescue of AIG during the fall 2008 financial crisis. The district court dismissed Starr's claims and Starr appealed. The suit challenged the extraordinary measures taken by FRBNY to rescue AIG from bankruptcy at the height of the direst financial crisis in modern times. In light of the direct conflict these measures created between the private duties imposed by Delaware fiduciary duty law and the public duties imposed by FRBNY's governing statutes and regulations, the court held that, in this suit, state fiduciary duty law was preempted by federal common law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. http://j.st/v79 View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
In re: Emoral, Inc.Court: U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 13-1467Opinion Date: January 24, 2014Judge: Barry Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Injury Law Aaroma acquired certain assets and liabilities of Emoral, a manufacturer of diacetyl, a chemical used in the food flavoring industry. The parties were aware of potential claims arising from exposure to diacetyl. Their agreement stated that Aaroma was not assuming liabilities related to “Diacetyl Litigation,” and was not purchasing Emoral’s corresponding insurance coverage. Emoral filed for bankruptcy. The Trustee and Aaroma entered into an agreement, under which Aaroma paid $500,000 and the Trustee released Aaroma from any “causes of action . . . that are property of the Debtor’s Estate.” In response to objections by the Diacetyl Claimants, the parties added that their agreements would not “operate as a release of, or a bar to prosecution of any claims held by any person which do not constitute Estate’s Released Claims.” The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement without resolving whether the Diacetyl claims constituted “Estate’s Released Claims.” The Diacetyl Claimants filed individual complaints, alleging that Aaroma was a “mere continuation” of Emoral. The Bankruptcy Court held that the Diacetyl claims were not property of the estate. The district court reversed, finding that the claim for successor liability was a “generalized” claim belonging to the estate because a finding that Aaroma was a “mere continuation” of Emoral would benefit Emoral’s creditors generally. The Third Circuit affirmed. Because the Diacetyl claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate, it falls within the “Estate’s Released Claims.” The Diacetyl Plaintiffs have no apparent recourse against Aaroma. http://j.st/vYa View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Bank of New York Mellon v. GC Merchandise Mart, L.L.C., et al.Court: U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 13-10461Opinion Date: January 27, 2014Judge: Davis Areas of Law: Banking, Bankruptcy, Contracts This dispute arose out of a complicated bankruptcy proceeding. On appeal, Lender challenged the district court's judgment which, in relevant part, disallowed Lender's claim for a contractual prepayment consideration. Applying Colorado law, a lender was not entitled to a prepayment penalty when the lender chooses to accelerate the note. Absent a clear contractual provision to the contrary or evidence of the borrower's bad faith in defaulting to avoid a penalty, a lender's decision to accelerate acts as a waiver of a prepayment penalty. In this instance, the plain language of the contract plainly provided that no Prepayment Consideration was owed unless there was an actual prepayment, whether voluntary or involuntary. Accordingly, the acceleration of the Note due to GCMM's default by nonpayment under Article 4 did not trigger the obligation to pay the Prepayment Consideration under Article 6. http://j.st/vsP View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Clark v. ZwanzigerCourt: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 12-6123Opinion Date: January 28, 2014Judge: Tymkovich Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Business Law, Labor & Employment Law In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered a novel question: Does issue preclusion apply in bankruptcy court to a final determination in district court that a party waived an issue? Upon review of the circumstances of this case and the applicable statutes, the Court concluded issue preclusion did not apply to the waiver finding here. The Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and remanded this case for the bankruptcy court to reinstate its order. http://j.st/vn8 View Case on: Justia Google Scholar
Muccio v. HuntCourt: Arkansas Supreme Court Docket: CV-11-1273Opinion Date: January 30, 2014Judge: Hart Areas of Law: Bankruptcy, Business Law, Contracts, Injury Law Following the bankruptcy of BioBased Technologies, LLC, certain members of BioBased (Appellants) brought an action against other members, the members’ lawyers, and the managers of the corporation for fraud, breach of duty to disclose company information, conversion of membership interest, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. The circuit court granted summary judgment on some claims, dismissed some claims, and found that the remainder of the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on Appellants’ claims for fraud, breach of duty to disclose company information, and conversion of membership interest claims based on Appellants’ lack of standing, as Appellants had standing to assert their claims; (2) the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on Appellants’ fraud claim against certain defendants on the basis that Appellants “failed to meet proof with proof” to show that the defendants made false representations of fact; (3) the circuit court erred in dismissing claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and (4) the circuit court erred in concluding that the bankruptcy proceeding had res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on Appellants’ state-law claims. Remanded. http://j.st/v2S View Case on: Justia Google Scholar


Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.

Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.

Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.

 Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.com
You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected] From This Newsletteror unsubscribe [email protected] immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011, Justia Inc.