|
New Cases For the Week of June 21 2004 -
June 25, 2004
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
June
25, 2004
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Patriot Company
(DBN Subscription Required) |
8th
Cir. BAP |
In
order for a shareholder of a
debtor to have standing to
appeal an order authorizing
compromise of a cause of
action by the debtor, the
shareholder must establish at
the compromise hearing that
that a successful objection to
the motion to compromise would
have resulted in a surplus |
|
|
|
|
June
23, 2004
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Resorts International, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
For
a bankruptcy court to exercise
post-confirmation
"related to"
jurisdiction over a
proceeding, the proceeding
must have a close nexus to the
bankruptcy plan or case.
This test is is particularly
relevant to situations
involving continuing trusts,
like litigation trusts, where
the plan has been confirmed,
but former creditors are
relegated to the trust res for
payment on account of their
claims. In such
situations, matters that
affect the interpretation,
implementation, consummation,
execution, or administration
of the confirmed plan will
typically have the requisite
close nexus.
Where
accounting malpractice claims
of a post-confirmation trust
arose post-confirmation, the
bankruptcy court lacked
"related to"
jurisdiction over the
claims. The claims
lacked a close nexus with
implementation of the plan or
the bankruptcy case.
Moreover, although the outcome
of the claims would have an
impact on the beneficiaries of
the trust, they no longer have
a close nexus to bankruptcy
plan or proceeding because
they exchanged their creditor
status to attain rights to the
litigation claims. |
Polaroid
Corporation et al. v. James
Barron
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr.
De. |
Where
the bankruptcy court granted a
creditors' committee authority
to prosecute claims on behalf
of the estate, and the
committee filed litigation the
same day of the hearing, the
committee's standing was not
affected by the fact that the
order was not docketed until
two days later or that the
limitations period ran two
days after that. |
|
|
|
|
June
22, 2004
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Superior Crewboats, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th
Cir. |
The
bankruptcy court erred in
declining to apply judicial
estoppel to bar personal
injury claims that were not
disclosed in debtors'
bankruptcies. Unless
judicial estoppel was applied,
the debtors would have been
able to "have their cake
and eat it too." |
In
re FFP Operating Partners, LLP
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr.
N.D. Tex. |
Section
365(d)(3) is inapplicable to
an indemnification provision
in an unassumed lease where
the subject lawsuit was filed
prepetition. |
In
re FFP Operating Partners, LLP
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr.
N.D. Tex. |
A
proration approach cannot be
squared with the language
Congress actually chose when
it adopted § 365(d)(3).
However, where a lease does
not trigger a debtor's
obligation to pay taxes until
the lessor bills the debtor
for the taxes, the obligation
has not arisen where the
lessor has not delivered the
ill. |
|
|
|
|
June
21, 2004
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re McNamara
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr.
Conn. |
Discharge
denied for debtor who claimed
to have lost $130,000 in a
winner-take-all stud poker
game at a private residence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|