|
New Cases For the Week of September 23, 2002
- September 27, 2002
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
September
27, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Raffel
(DBN Subscription Required) |
8th
Cir. |
Because
review by any federal court, other than
the United States Supreme Court, of the
validity of a prepetition state court
judgment is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the bankruptcy court did not err
in according collateral estoppel effect to
such a judgment when the debtor contended
that the judgment was invalid. |
In
re Beaty
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th
Cir. |
The
doctrine of laches can apply
to nondischargeability
complaints brought under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) and
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 4007(b). |
U.S.
V. Crispo
(DBN Subscription Required) |
2nd
Cir. |
A
trustee is a court officer
protected by the court-officer
prong of 18 USC § 1503
(obstruction of justice) |
Dateline
Exports, Inc. v. Basic
Construction, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th
Cir. |
A
federal district court lacks
authority to issue a
preliminary injunction that
freezes a debtor's assets in
cases involving unsecured
creditors |
|
|
|
|
September
25, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Steinacher
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th
Cir. BAP |
A
local rule of the bankruptcy court which
requires Chapter 13 debtors who had any
bankruptcy cases pending within six months
of filing their Chapter 13 petitions to
tender to the Chapter 13 trustee, within
fifteen days of their petition dates, the
lesser amount of (1) mortgage payments
that became due (but were not paid) during
the pendency of the prior case or (2)
mortgage payments that became due in the
six months prior to the filing of the
Chapter 13 case is invalid, since it
conflicts with the Bankruptcy Code. |
In
re Associated Vintage Group, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th
Cir. BAP |
Under
certain circumstances,
confirmation of a plan may
preclude recovery of
preference claims from
creditors whose claims are
dealt with by the plan.
However, in this case no such
bar was present, since the
plan was not confirmed in
circumstances in which a
creditor was induced to accept
the plan on the implied
representation that the
preference would not be
attacked post-confirmation. |
|
|
|
|
September
24, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Official
Committee of Unsecured
Creditors of Cybergenics
Corporation
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
Because
of the Supreme Court's decision in Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters
Bank, N.A., the bankruptcy court erred
in granting a creditors' committee the right
to pursue fraudulent transfer litigation.
There is no principled way to distiguish
the the exclusive trustee standing arising
from "the trustee may" language
at issue in Hartford and the same
"the trustee may" language authorizing
the commencement of fraudulent transfer
litigation. Accordingly, only the
trustee has standing to bring fraudulent
transfer litigation. |
In
re Caldor Corp.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
2d
Cir. |
The
plain text of sec. 1109
indicates Congress intended to
grant an unconditional
statutory right for parties in
interest to intervene in
adversary proceedings that
occur in connection with a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy case |
In
re Pillowtex, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
The
bankruptcy court erred in
approving the employment of
counsel for the debtor in
possession without first
determining whether such
counsel lacked
disinterestedness due to
receipt of a
preference. |
In
re Woskob
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
Because
a partnership agreement
constitutes an executory
contract, the filing of
bankruptcy by a partner does
not result in a dissolution of
the nondebtor partnership
despite apparent State law to
the contrary. |
Greer
v. O'Dell
(DBN Subscription Required) |
11th
Cir. |
A
loan servicer may appear in
Bankruptcy Court to protect a
claim relating to the debt
that it services |
Ernst
& Young LLP v. Baker
O'Neal Holdings, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
7th
Cir. |
When
a bankuptcy court retained
jurisdiction through a
confirmed plan over “[a]djudication
of any pending adversary
proceeding, or other
controversy or dispute,”
that provision waived an
arbitration provision that
would have otherwise applied
to adjudication of claims
against the debtor's audoitors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|