|
New Cases For the Week of July 13, 2009 - July 17, 2009
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.
| July 14, 2009 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
In re Fruit of the Loom, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Bankr DE |
Although an abstention waiver clause is valid, such clauses do not preclude a bankruptcy court from ordering permissive abstention sua sponte. |
Tech. Lending Ptnrs. LLC v. San Patricio Cty. Cmty. Action Agency
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th Cir. |
District court's dismissal of creditors' appeal of a bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement order is reversed where the district court improperly applied the doctrine of equitable mootness because the relief requested would not affect the success of the plan or the rights of parties not before the court. |
| |
|
|
| July 14, 2009 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
In re Dittmar
(DBN Subscription Required) |
10th Cir. BAP |
Where, on a petition date, the determination of whether a debtor will receive a future bonus, or other potential benefit under a contract, is entirely in the discretion of a third party, the debtor has merely an expectancy, and not a property right. Thus, funds received post-petition from such a source are not property of the estate. |
In re Sun 'N Fun Waterpark, LLC
(DBN Subscription Required) |
10th Cir BAP |
Where a secured creditor forecloses, the foreclosure may result in the merger of the mortgage with the property, thereby eliminating any future right to rely on the mortgage as the source for a right to further attorney fees, including fees that might otherwise be payable to an oversecured creditor under 11 USC 506(b). |
| |
|
|
| July 13, 2009 |
Case |
Court |
Holding |
Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th Cir. |
In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding by former officers of the Debtor for indemnification in an underlying action for breach of fiduciary duty, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the "insured versus insured" exclusion in the relevant policies barred coverage, because a post-bankruptcy debtor in possession acts in the same capacity as the pre-bankruptcy debtor for the purpose of directors and officers liability insurance. |
| |
|
|
|