| 
  
    
      | New Cases For the Week of July 9, 2001 - July
        13, 2001 Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
        - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet  
    
    
      | 
  
    
      | 
    
    
      | 
  
    
      | 
    
    
      | 
  
    
      | 
    
    
      | 
          
            
              
                | July 12, 2001 |  
                | Case | Court | Holding |  
          
            
              
                | C.F.
                  Trust v. Peterson (DBN Subscription Required)
 | 4th Cir. | In
                  a suit against a guarantor, the trial court did not err in
                  declining to give res judicata effect to a final report in
                  bankruptcy in which the holder of the subject debt voluntarily
                  agreed to reduce the amount it would seek from the bankruptcy
                  estate of the principal debtor.  The concession was made
                  to avoid litigation with the bankruptcy estate and did not
                  operate to reduce the amount of the debt or the ability of the
                  owner of the debt to pursue the guarantor for the full unpaid
                  amount. |  
                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
          
            
              
                | July 9, 2001 |  
                | Case | Court | Holding |  
          
            
              
                | In
                  re Debby Reynolds Hotel & Casino, Inc. (Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in
                  required to view)
 | 9th
                  Cir. | Under
                  the Supreme Court's holding in Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
                  v. Union Planters Bank, a third party which might be entitled
                  to surcharge reimbursement has no standing to challenge a
                  DIP's surcharge settlement on behalf of another claimant,
                  since the DIP is the gatekeeper of the surcharge function. A contractual agreement between a DIP and a
                  secured creditor (entered into as part of a Court-approved
                  settlement regarding a single surcharge claim in favor of a
                  law firm), that no further surcharge claims would be brought
                  against the secured creditor lacked legal effect. |  |  |  |  |  |