|
New Cases For the Week of April 25, 2011 - April 29, 2011
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
| April 28, 2011 |
In re CB Holding Corp.
(DBN) |
Bankr. DE |
A landlord's right of first refusal to purchase the debtor's liquor license was not severable from the lease, was executory, and was rejected when the debtors rejected the underlying lease |
In the Matter of Crossroads Ford, Inc.
(DBN) |
Bankr. NE |
A Chapter 11 small business case is not required to be dismissed simply because the first plan filed by the debtor was not confirmed within 45 days of its filing |
In re the Heritage Organization, L.L.C.
(DBN) |
Bankr. ND TX |
Judge Houser reviews 5th Circuit principles of post-confirmation jurisdiction. |
In re Nachshon Draiman
(DBN) |
Bankr. ND IL |
A Chapter 11 plan that does not provide for payment of post-confirmation interest to disputed unsecured claims when unidisputed claims will be paid on the effective date discriminates unfairly.
The absolute priority rule still applies in individual Chapter 11 cases, but § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) limits the application of the absolute priority rule by allowing an individual to retain only the property that is added to the estate by § 1115. |
| |
|
|
| April 27, 2011 |
Picard v. HSBC Bank PLC
(DBN) |
SD NY |
Where resolution of a trustee's multi-billion dollar adversary proceeding will require substantial and material interpretation of non-bankruptcy federal law (here, SIPA), the district court is required to withdraw the reference to address those issues.
Although it has bankruptcy aspects, SIPA is an amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is thus non-bankruptcy federal law.
To establish standing, the trustee will have to establish that he has the right to litigate creditor's individual claims against third parties - a result generally precluded by the Caplin doctrine. |
| |
|
|
| April 26, 2011 |
In re Maui Industrial Loan & Finance Company
(DBN) |
Bankr. HI |
Recent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases have eviscerated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, particularly in bankruptcy. |
In re Heller Ehrman LLP
(DBN) |
Bankr. ND CA |
Under California law, a distressed law firm is entitled to the net value (i.e. profits) of WIP. A provision in an agreement between the firm and departing attorneys which waives WIP rights is a "transfer" of such rights for avoidance purposes. The debtor here may seek to recover such profits from the law where the departing attorneys went to work. That law firm may be liable as a subsequent transferree or an entity for whose benefit the transfer of profits was made. |
| |
|
|
| April 25, 2011 |
In re MacMenamin's Grill Ltd.
(DBN) |
Bankr. SD NY |
Because Section 546(e)'s textual context, focuses, in the midst of a circular and therefore ambiguous set of definitions, on the trade or business of securities transactions, reference to the legislative history is warranted. It is clear from the legislative history that unless a party seeking the protection of 546(e) carries the burden of proving that: (i) involved any entity in its capacity as a participant in any securities market or (ii) avoidance of the subject transaction poses any danger to the functioning of any securities market, the statute does not apply. |
In re Nguyen
(DBN) |
9th Cir. BAP |
While the ABA Standards remain a helpful guide in the imposition of sanctions, the requirement of applying the ABA Standards is inconsistent with the exercise of discretion needed for a bankruptcy court to remedy attorney misconduct, as well as with procedures that certain districts have in place for sanctioning attorneys under their local rules. |
| |
|
|
|