|
New Cases For the Week of October 22, 2007 - October 26, 2007
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.
October 25, 2007 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
In re AMP Enclosure Systems, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr. DE |
The "necessity" standard for allowance of professional fees is whether it was likely when the services were performed that the performance of the services would result in a benefit to the estate commensurate with the expected cost of the services. Proof that a benefit actually was received (i.e., the "hindsight view") is not the benchmark. The absence of an ultimate benefit is however, a probative factor in evaluating allowance of fees.
The "reasonableness" standard for allowance of professional fees is always done in hindsight.
The Court reconsiders its prior ruling disallowing certain fees of Duane Morris, and: (i) allows fees related to resolution of a major claim and (ii) reduces fees due to counsel's failure to get Court approval of bid procedures before conducting an auction of the debtor's assets. |
In re Seven Fields Development Corp.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd Cir. |
Following removal of a malpractice, negligence, and fraud suit brought in state court by creditors in a consolidated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against the accountants who performed work during the bankruptcy, a decision dismissing the matter is affirmed as: 1) the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy and district courts' decisions relating to alleged procedural defects in the removal process and mandatory or permissive abstention; and 2) the bankruptcy and district courts did not err with respect to claims relating to subject matter jurisdiction and the bankruptcy court's final adjudicative authority. |
In re Dorsey
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th Cir. |
In a matter in which appellant-creditor brought an adversary complaint against a bankruptcy debtor seeking to deny the debtor's discharge or to hold the debtor's debt to it non-dischargeable, dismissal of the adversary complaint and an injunction against creditor is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the bankruptcy court erred by holding that appellant lacked standing to file the adversary proceeding; 2) however, it did not err in denying appellant's objection to dischargeability of the debt under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2); 3) an objection to discharge under 11 U.S.C. section 727 required reconsideration in light of the ruling on standing; and 4) due to the error on standing, an injunction prohibiting appellant from filing future complaints objecting to discharge or dischargeability without prior court approval is vacated. |
In re Calpine Corp.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr. SDNY |
Where the debtor's plan provided that unsecured creditors would receive 100% repayment, with interest, through the currency of equity in the reorganized debtor, a fraudulent transfer defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the action against it on the grounds that avoidance of the transfer would not result in a benefit to unsecured creditors. The "benefit" required as a predicate to avoiding a transfer is "to the estate." Where the estate would benefit from in increased capital and financial resources as a result of avoided transfers, and this would enhance the equity awarded to unsecured creditors, such a Benefit could be found to be adequate. |
| |
|
|
October 23, 2007 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
In re Boone County Utilities, LLC
(DBN Subscription Required) |
7th Cir. |
Judges are not Sudoku masters. |
In re Delta Air Lines, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr. SDNY |
Where a confirmed plan disenfranchised all parties other than a post-Effective Date
committee from the claims resolution process, including the Bankruptcy Court, and gave the reorganized debtors the power to exercise their business judgment as if there were no pending cases under any
chapter or provision of the Bankruptcy Code, subject only to oversight of the post-Effective Date
Committee, other unsecured creditors were not entitled to relief seeking judicial oversight of settlements that were significantly reducing the value of dividends from the value estimates that had been published in the disclosure statement . |
| |
|
|
|