Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., 68 A.3d 197 (2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Inre Brooke Capital Corp., 2012 WL 4793010 (Bankr. D. Kan., Oct. 5, 2012)

Inre Zais Investment Grade Limited VII, 455 B.R. 839 (2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.  

In re General Growth Props., Inc., Case No. 09-11977 (ALG), 2011 BL 189724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

A decision by the High Court in December has strengthened the position of landlords who sometimes do not get paid during the administration even where the administrator is running the business from the property.

Certain categories of expense which may be incurred by the company after it has gone into administration, and which an administrator has to pay are known as "expenses of the administration" and the assets of the company in administration must be applied towards payment of these expenses ahead of any payment to creditors under floating charges or to unsecured creditors.

We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.

The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.

We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.

The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.

A Virginia bankruptcy court has issued a decision that should be a major eye-opener for any entity that engages in tax-free exchanges under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.