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

As you may recall, the High Court ruled in December 2010, in a case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, that the cost of complying with a financial support direction ("FSD"), issued by the Pensions Regulator after the date of the commencement of a company's administration or liquidation, would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

In a recent high profile case brought by the administrators of 20 insolvent companies in the Lehman and Nortel groups, the High Court ruled that the cost of complying with a financial support direction (“FSD”) issued after the date of the commencement of a company’s administration or liquidation by the Pensions Regulator would rank as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a bankruptcy trustee could not avoid an unauthorized sale of real estate to a bona fide purchaser— although the proceeds of the sale did belong to the estate.

The court ruled that an unauthorized postpetition transfer of real property in California could be avoided only if the buyer had actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing, or if the trustee recorded the transfer of title to the property from the debtor to the estate in the land records of the applicable county, In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2008).