New Cases For the Week of November 22, 2004 - November 26, 2004

Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet 

Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.

 

November 24, 2004

Case

Court

Holding

In re Intergrated Telecom Express, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required)
3rd Cir. Dissent on en banc denial: The Court's opinion in this case (holding that equity holders of a debtor may not file a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition solely to reap for themselves a substantial gain through bankruptcy at the expense of the debtor's sole creditor) should be limited to its "snow in August facts".
     

November 23, 2004

Case

Court

Holding

In re Heartland Steel, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required)
7th Cir. A plan is not simply a private contract subject only to rules of contract interpretation (though indeed it may be contract-like for some purposes). It is an agreement whose every provision has been approved and therefore activated by court order. Accordingly, Fed. R. Bankr. P 9006 (specifying that when the last day of a deadline falls on a weekend the deadline is extended to the next business day) applies to calculation of a confirmed plan's 90-day deadline to object to claims.
     

November 22, 2004

Case

Court

Holding

In re EXDS, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required)
Bankr. DE

Where claims by a debtor are subject to arbitration, it is proper for the bankruptcy court (rather than an arbitrator) to determine whether res judicata arising form confirmation of the debtor's plan bars the claims before they are sent to arbitration.

Res judicata did not bar the debtor's claims, even though both the debtor and the defendant were involved in the bankruptcy case. The relief sought in the adversary proceeding was not sufficiently related to the issues resolved at confirmation to give rise to res judicata. In addition, where a disclosure statement or plan specifically reserve actions for further adjudication, res judicata does not apply. Where fraud is not discovered until after confirmation, res judicata does not apply to bar the fraud claim.

Where a debtor, at the time of confirmation, was not aware of the facts giving rise to a claim against its consultant, the debtor's failure to disclose such claim in its disclosure statement does not bar the claim under principles of judicial estoppel.

     

 

 

Copyright © 2004  [BKINFORMATION.COM]. All rights reserved.