“Just enough” is an undeniable—if informal—legal precept. The concept finds its way into canon from adequacy of pleading to application of equity. See, e.g., K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (A complaint “must give just enough factual detail to provide ‘fair notice of what
Critical Vendor Order Insufficient to Protect Critical Vendors Against Preference Claims
In a recent post, our own Harriet Wallace observed a truism in a recent ruling by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the chapter 7 iteration of the infamous Jevic case—the wording of an order matters. The Court saw fit to bold and underline that maxim in yet another
Circuit Split Over Constitutionality of United States Trustee Fee Increases Picks Up More Steam
The Snowball effect, the Domino effect, and even the Streisand effect all demonstrate the accretive impact of small changes. Though without a catchy metaphor, the tendency of Circuit splits to attract new and deviating opinions fits the concept—particularly as applied to the deepening rift between Circuits over the constitutionality of United States Trustee fee increases
When Subchapter V Management Misbehaves: “For Cause” Expansion of a Subchapter V Trustee’s Management Duties
Somewhere in our rough memories of high school science, we should recall the general principle that a gas will always expand to fill a given void. Although the Bankruptcy Code diverges markedly from scientific principles, newly enacted provisions in Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code suggest some similarity. In In re Dani