On Command Video Corp. v. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430 (7th Cir., Jan. 14, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Castleton Plaza, LP,___F.3d__, 2013 WL 537269 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In the Matter of: Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., No. 12-10271 (5th Cir., Feb. 26, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC, et al., 486 B.R. 286 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first court of appeals to determine whether the absolute priority rule continues to apply to individual chapter 11 debtors. Taking the "narrow view" adopted by certain courts, the Fourth Circuit held that the rule was not abrogated by the amendments of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, and therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of the proposed plan.
Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a matter of first impression in the Seventh Circuit, the court held that a chapter 7 trustee’s rejection of an executory contract did not terminate the trademark license contained therein.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Patriot Coal Corporation, et al., 492 B.R. 718 (2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code empowers a bankruptcy trustee to avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that is voidable under "applicable law" by an unsecured creditor. Under the plain language of section 544(b), before a trustee can maintain an avoidance action, the trustee must demonstrate the existence of a qualified creditor, i.e., one who: (i) has a right to avoid the transfers; and (ii) holds an "allowable" unsecured claim. Importantly, the scope of "applicable law" is undefined.
In re GAC Storage Lansing, LLC, No. 11-40944 (Bankr. N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The court denied confirmation of the debtor’s plan, finding that: (i) the debtor failed to demonstrate that it would be able to obtain financing to pay off the balloon payment; (ii) the proposed transfer of new equity to an individual with indirect ownership interest violated the absolute priority rule; and (iii) the plan’s injunction barring actions by the secured creditor against the guarantors was overly broad.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND