Explore the vast range of titles available.

[...]it is within the scope of estate property under § 541(a)(1). A DIP may also sell property of the estate under § 363(b), which does not require that the purchaser of estate property \"also be a representative of the estate, only that the [DIP] give notice and hold a hearing.\" [...]the court held that not only arc preference claims property of the bankruptcy estate that may be sold, \"the purchasers of preference claims have standing to pursue them. Dec. 13, 2023) (as matter of first impression, bankruptcy court concluded that corporation in pending chapter 7 case was still \"affiliate\" of its owner for purposes of determining owner's subchapter V eligibility under § 1182; as threshold issue, bankruptcy court adopted majority position and concluded that debtor bears burden of proof on eligibility under subchapter V; turning to eligibility, debtor did not dispute that he was owner of \"voting securities\" in liquidating entities prior to filing of entities' chapter 7 cases more than five years ago and thus was affiliated with those entities; however, relying on definition of \"voting securities\" adopted by Securities and Exchange Commission in Code of Federal Regulations, debtor argued that he ceased being \"affiliate\" upon chapter 7 trustees' appointments over liquidating entities' estates because he lost all meaningful voting power and control such that he no longer owned \"voting securities\"; bankruptcy court rejected this contention, reasoning that plain language of § 1182(l)(B)(i) includes debtors under all of title 11, not just debtors in non-chapter 7 cases or non-trustee cases; bankruptcy court reasoned that if Congress had intended to exclude all chapter 7 debtors from subchapter V eligibility analysis, it would not do so by using broad umbrella of \"title 11\" on face of § 1182, only to bury real intention to exclude chapter 7 debtors through novel interpretation of term \"affiliate\"; further, bankruptcy court rejected notion that appointment of chapter 7 trustee renders owner's voting power meaningless, as debtor offered no authority suggesting that owner is not permitted to elect directors of chapter 7 debtor; finally, bankruptcy court expressed concern that adopting debtor's definition of \"affiliate\" would open \"Pandora's box\" due to other Bankruptcy Code sections, Bankruptcy Rules and venue statutes all implicating term \"affiliate\"); * In re Montenegro, - B .R. -, 2023 WL 8655441 (Bankr. Jan. 22, 2024) (trust established for primary benefit of trustor's daughter, whose main asset was $13 million luxury home in which daughter resided, was not a \"business trust\" for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A)(v) and therefore was not \"person\" eligible to be debtor in bankruptcy proceeding; debtor had burden of proving eligibility to file bankruptcy petition; whether trust qualified as business trust was governed exclusively by federal law principles of statutory interpretation; proper test for whether trust qualifies as business trust is based on U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Hecht v. Malley, 265 U.S. 144 (1924), and Morrissey v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 296 U.S. 344 (1935), which consider whether (1) trust was both created and maintained for a business purpose; (2) title to property is held by trustees; (3) trust has centralized management; (4) continuity of trust is unaffected by death of beneficiaries; (5) interests in trust are transferable; and (6) trust has limited liability); and * In re LaMonda, 2024 WL 413419, - В .R. -

Several explanations have been proposed for the “leaky pipeline” of women and underrepresented minorities in academic medicine. One factor that has yet to garner attention is the lack of term limits for senior leaders, whose numbers remain disproportionately white and male.

The requirements for obtaining the payment of administrative expenses and other strategies for maximizing prospects for payment are discussed herein, including a recent subchapter V case in which a court conditionally approved a novel safeguard based on the trustee's ability to seek the use of assets outside of the ordinary course of business.3 There Are Few Parameters for Filing, Allowance or Payment of Administrative-Expense Requests The allowance and payment of administrative expenses is governed by § 503 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 503 (a) provides that a party may file a request for payment of an administrative expense,4 while § 503 (b) addresses the allowance of administrative expenses and lists nine types of administrative expenses.5 The policy focus of § 503 is the prevention of unjust enrichment of the estate, and to encourage creditors and vendors to do business with the debtor.6 The importance of § 503 is derived from § 507 (\"Priorities\"), which gives administrative expenses a second administrative priority behind domestic support obligations.7 The Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure are silent on the procedure for filing an administrative-expense request. Courts have considerable discretion in determining the timing for payment of an administrative expense.13 When exercising this discretion, courts often consider prejudice to the debtor, hardship to the claimant and potential detriment to other creditors.14 In In re Global Home Products LLC, the court applied these factors to a creditor's request for immediate payment of its administrative-expense claim. The court advised the subchapter V trustee that the requested deposit would be established (but for all administrative creditors) if no timely objections to a properly served motion were raised.22 The Roe court determined that the subchapter V trustee held concurrent authority with the debtor to use the trustee's rights and powers as necessary for the trustee to fulfill its duties under § 1183, including the trustee's duty under § 1183 (b)(4) to \"ensure that the debtor commences making timely payments required by a plan confirmed under\" subchapter V.23 This novel approach to approving the trustee's request for a deposit to be held for administrative claims could provide guardrails for subchapter V administrative creditors and be useful for early avoidance of insolvent subchapter V cases.

Many studies use variables from the Compustat database to measure various marketing constructs, yet no clear guidelines detail which metrics correspond with which constructs. Justifications rest mainly on the ready availability of easy-to-use measures that seem related to a particular construct. As a result, various metrics have been utilized to capture the same construct, and the same metric—such as selling, general, and administrative expenses (SGA)—has been applied to capture vastly different constructs. But using SGA inappropriately can lead to biased estimates, questionable support for the hypotheses, and potentially misleading implications for research and practice. To test the validity of SGA for multiple relevant marketing and sales constructs, this study gathers data on benchmark variables from alternative data sources and applies a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approach. Results show that, in general, SGA has been applied too liberally in marketing contexts; SGA is an appropriate operationalization only for some constructs. This article provides guidelines for the proper conceptualization and operationalization of marketing constructs.

In general, student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can establish a burden of undue hardship.2 Courts have found undue hardship to be an extremely high burden, causing the bankruptcy discharge of student loan debt to be extremely rare.3 To address a potentially inescapable burden of nondischargeable student loan debt, Congress and the executive branch have established an IBR loan forgiveness program that allows the automatic discharge of certain student loan debt after 20 years, provided that the debtor continuously participated in the plan payments.4 Under IBR, payments by the debtor are limited to 10 percent of the debtor's disposable income that exceeds 150 percent of the poverty line.5 As such, graduates with the capacity to pay back their student loans pay back the full cost of their education while limiting the financial burden and providing a road to discharge for those who do not.6 This is not very different from the main tax system, where all receive the benefits of government, but the costs are paid for in a progressive way.7 The IBR approach is unique in that it addresses the risk of financial distress for debtors with nondischargeable student loan debt and operates conceptually as a tax system.8 The idea that Congress provided an alternative to reduce the financial distress of student loan borrowers through IBR plans was not lost on the courts and has been factored into bankruptcy's undue-hardship However, this does not consider that the student loan debtor may also bear additional collateral consequences through increased costs for other indebtedness.12 Since the debtor would never be able to demonstrate that they were unable to repay the loan while meeting necessary living expenses, the unduehardship analysis would not be met; therefore, bankruptcy is not an option for student loan debt.13 Student loan debt is effectively nondischargeable in bankruptcy, and if the debtor does not meet the IBR payments, the government could enforce the student loan obligation without any time limit until the debtor dies or becomes disabled.14 While the existence of an IBR option closes the door on a bankruptcy discharge, the Bankruptcy Code has not been revised to accommodate the IBR alternative in considering a debtor's disposable income. \"16 Section 707(b)(2) contains detailed instructions on what expenses can be included in the calculation of disposable income and generally does not permit the inclusion of student loan payments.17 The Bankruptcy Code requires that the calculation of expenses \"shall not include any payments for debts\"18 other than the payments for secured debt and priority claims.19 Student loan debts are not typically secured debt and not included in 507's priority scheme or 503's list of administrative expenses.20 Because Congress did not include payments for student loan debts in that section, courts have found that debtors are not permitted to include those expenses.21 A notable exception to the bright-line disposableincome calculations are the special circumstances described in 707(b)(2)(B).22 Under this clause, the presumption of abuse may only be rebutted by demonstrating \"special circumstances,\"23 such as a serious medical condition or a call/ order to active duty in the Armed Forces ,24 The provision further limits the exception to the extent that (1) such special circumstances justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income; and (2) there is no reasonable alternative.25 Many courts have found that educational loans do not qualify as \"special circumstances. [...]the 707(b)(2) means test may prevent a borrower from confirming a chapter 13 plan that contains sufficient student loan payments to comply with the IBR program. [...]the most distressed student loan borrowers might be unable to participate in the IBR plan - a plan intended by Congress to reduce financial distress related to student loans.

The Department of Labor (DOL) estimates that just over 8,000 employee benefit plans will no longer require annual audits. Current: o Headcount is performed on first day of plan year. o Count all employees who were eligible and active on day 1 of plan year. o Add all terminated participants with balances. o The sum of these two amounts is the plan's headcount. o Generally, if that count is over 100, a plan audit is needed. o The 80-120 rule is factored in certain situations. The Conversation Plan Sponsor (PS): My third-party administrator (TPA) tells me I may not need an audit next year. [...]I still feel it's great for business to save money on the audit fees, no offense.

Planning is the most important function of management as it is the stage of planning when the main targets of the enterprise are determined and the assessment of the resources necessary for the targets implementation is made. The enterprise within its activities needs different types of resources, however the most important type of resources are financial resources as the availability of other types of resources as well as the opportunity to receive them always depends on the of financial opportunities. Planning of financial resources, determination of their optimum structure, the search of their sources is the most important task of financial management system and financial planning at the enterprise. Financial planning can be carried out with the use of various instruments, the most popular of which is the budgeting system. The advantage of budgeting is the absence of any strict established and fixed rules of planning and accounting as well as the opportunity to regulate forms and to determine indicators for the specific enterprise depending on its requirements. In this article the main features of the construction enterprises which influence the course and features of financial planning are considered. Also the requirements to the budgeting system imposed by the small construction enterprises at a stage of their formation to which, first of all, limitation of funds for planning and conducting the budget accounting belongs are considered in details. The integrated structure of budgets differing in the minimum set of the budget forms is offered as the decision. Some approximate forms of budgets are also developed and presented, however they can be adjusted depending on desire and requirements of the specific enterprise.

Concerns about reducing the rate of growth of health expenditures have reignited interest in medical liability reforms and their potential to save money by reducing the practice of defensive medicine. It is not easy to estimate the costs of the medical liability system, however. This article identifies the various components of liability system costs, generates national estimates for each component, and discusses the level of evidence available to support the estimates. Overall annual medical liability system costs, including defensive medicine, are estimated to be $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or 2.4 percent of total health care spending. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Drug design is a complex pharmaceutical science with a long history. Many achievements have been made in the field of drug design since the end of 19th century, when Emil Fisher suggested that the drug-receptor interaction resembles the key and lock interplay. Gradually, drug design has been transformed into a coherent and well-organized science with a solid theoretical background and practical applications. Now, drug design is the most advanced approach for drug discovery. It utilizes the innovations in science and technology and includes them in its wide-ranging arsenal of methods and tools in order to achieve the main goal: discovery of effective, specific, non-toxic, safe and well-tolerated drugs. Drug design is one of the most intensively developing modern sciences and its progress is accelerated by the implication of artificial intelligence. The present review aims to capture some of the most important milestones in the development of drug design, to outline some of the most used current methods and to sketch the future perspective according to the author's point of view. Without pretending to cover fully the wide range of drug design topics, the review introduces the reader to the content of Special Issue \"Drug Design-Science and Practice\".

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the impacts of Logistics 4.0 initiatives (focusing on automated warehousing systems) on the economic, environmental and social dimensions of firms' sustainability performance. To achieve this objective, a new framework for the assessment of sustainable warehousing in the 4.0 era is developed.Design/methodology/approachThe framework, developed via the item-objective congruence index, Q-sort method and interviews with experts, is employed to assess performance changes through management interviews in two warehousing companies after the implementation of automation technologies.FindingsMost aspects of both companies' sustainability performance are considerably improved (e.g. productivity, accuracy, air emission, worker safety and supply chain visibility); however, the outcome for some criteria might be worsened or improved depending on each company's solutions and strategies (e.g. increasing electricity bills, maintenance costs and job losses).Practical implicationsThe findings provide insight into the effective implementation of warehousing technologies. The proposed framework is also a valid and reliable instrument for sustainability assessment for warehousing operators, which companies can utilise for self-assessment.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to establishing a body of literature that explores the previously unclarified effects of Logistics 4.0 on firms' sustainability performance. The proposed framework, which captures critical concerns of corporate sustainability and technological adaptation, is also the first of its kind for warehouse performance assessment.