We’ve previously commented on this blog on a number of decisions (see: (i) Too Little, Too Late: Ninth Circuit Holds Confirmation Objection Insufficient to Revive Untimely Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability of Debt, (ii)
Key Points
- Trustees in bankruptcy entitled to more than return of shares wrongfully transferred by bankrupt
- Trustees also entitled to recover loss in the value of shares
- Appropriate basis of valuation was fair value (not market value)
The Facts
Key points
- Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
- Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
- The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment
The facts
For those interested in a quick read with some juicy facts and egregious acts by the relevant practitioners, check out the recent opinion in Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame), where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an order denying approval of a proposed settlement agreement was not a final order susceptible to appeal as of right.
Key Points
- Court held notice to scheme creditors (here two weeks) was not sufficient in light of complexity of scheme
- Court also highlighted deficiencies in supporting documentation
The Facts
One of the more appealing aspects of the U.S. bankruptcy process is the relative ease in which parties in interest may file proofs of claim. In years passed all it took was to mail in a simple form to the bankruptcy court or claims agent and now it is even easier with the advent of email and electronic claims uploading. This relatively easy process, however, often comes with a plethora of invalid or unenforceable proofs of claim.
We’ve previously written on various cases in which parties have sought to save or revive late filed pleadings by arguing those pleadings “relate back” to previously filed documents with varying degrees of success.
Key points
- Principles applying to exercise of liquidators’ powers are the same as those prior to legislative changes
- Views of creditors influenced by personal considerations to be disregarded
- The overriding requirement is for liquidators to exercise their professional judgment in the best interests of creditors
The facts
Practitioners that exclusively represent clients in large scale restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations may be used to the debtor remaining in place with senior management continuing to oversee the day to day operations of the company and overseeing the debtor’s reorganization case. It may seem strange then to such practitioners that, unlike in chapter 11 cases, the debtor in a chapter 7 case often has only a limited role in its own bankruptcy case after the initial debtor interview and the section 341 meeting of creditors. In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed and i
Key Points
- Test for personal service of bankruptcy petition same as for claim forms
- Document to be handed to debtor or contents explained and left “with or near” debtor
- Rule 7.55 can be used to remedy any irregularity in service if necessary
The Facts