|
New Cases For the Week of May 28, 2007 - June 1, 2007
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.
May 31, 2007 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
In re Cygnus Oil and Gas Corp.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr. SDTX |
The statutory disinterestedness of one member of a firm will not automatically be imputed to the firm. There is no per se rule of disqualification of a firm as a debtor's counsel where a member of the firm served as a director of the debtor within 2 years of the commencement of a Ch. 11case. |
| |
|
|
May 30, 2007 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
Bashaw v. State
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Tex. Ct. App. |
The automatic stay does not suspend appellate deadlines or proceedings arising from the debtor's right to appeal in a pre-petition trial action establishing a claim against the debtor. |
In re Sobczak
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th Cir. BAP |
The bankruptcy court abused its discretion in granting the debtor's motion to dismiss a Ch. 13 casa which had been converted from Ch. 7. There was a dispute as to whether the debtor was entitled to utilize the exemption law of a particular State. If the Debtor lost, creditors would have access to a substantial part of the debtor's homestead. Conversely, outside of bankruptcy, under applicable State law, the debtor would be entitled to the more generous homestead exemption, and the value in the home stead would be preserved for the debtor. THe court erred in granting the dismissal, since the court is required to consider the best interests of the estate, not the interests of the debtor. |
Asbestos Settlement Trust v. City of New York
(DBN Subscription Required) |
11th Cir. |
In appeal involving asbestos property damage claims by appellee city that the claims administrator of the Asbestos Settlement Trust allowed but the trustees refused to pay, summary judgment for appellee city is affirmed as the administrator has the power to control the trustees' actions in regard to the payment of asbestos property damage claims. However, as to one illustrative claim, appellee city has failed to submit the requisite "Reasonable Evidence" to present a legally viable cause of action under New York law. |
| |
|
|
|