|
New Cases For the Week of January 6,
2003 - January 10, 2003
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
January
10, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re United Artists Theatre
Company
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
The
United States Trustee has
standing to appeal a
bankruptcy court's decision to
approve employment of a
debtor's financial advisor.
Confirmation of the debtor's
plan did not moot the appeal.
Section 330,
which deals with what
constitutes
"reasonable"
compensation for
professionals, takes a
"market-driven"
approach, and some reference
to the market is not out of
place when considering whether
terms of retention are
"reasonable" in the
bankruptcy context.
Indemnification of financial
advisors against their own
negligent conduct is becoming
a common market occurrence.
The bankruptcy court did not
err in approving employment of
the financial advisor with an
indemnification provision
through which the advisor
avoided liability for its own
ordinary negligence (but not
gross negligence). |
In
re Kidd
(DBN Subscription Required) |
6th
Cir. |
The
bankruptcy court did not err in rejecting
a secured creditor's argument that only
the contract rate of interest could
satisfy the Circuit's "coerced
loan" rationale for calulation of the
appropriate interest rate payable to
secured claims under a Chapter 13 plan. |
Securities
and Exchange Commission v.
Sharp Capital, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th
Cir. |
Bankruptcies
and receiverships are
analogous for the purpose of
determining whether claims are
derivative and thus belong to
the estate.
The trial
court is not bound solely by
the allegations in the
complaint when determining
whether a claim is derivative
or direct. It is
appropriate for the court to
conduct a summary procedure to
look beyond the pleadings when
deciding this issue. |
|
|
|
|
January
7, 2002
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Bal Harbour Club, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
11th
Cir. |
In
deciding a motion to dismiss a
voluntary Ch. 11 bankruptcy
case on the grounds of bad
faith, the bankruptcy court
did not err by declining to
apply the business judgment
rule (i.e., a presumption that
the actions of the debtor's
board, including the decision
to file bankruptcy, were taken
in good faith). The
presumption arising form the
business judgment rule has no
bearing in the motion to
dismiss context because the
creditor/movant bears the
burden of proof, thereby
implicitly granting the debtor
a rebuttable presumption of
validity until the burden has
been met. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|