On August 31, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit published its first decision expressly adopting an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing equitable mootness determinations by district courts. In In re Charter Communications, Inc., the Second Circuit followed the Third and Tenth Circuits, while also reaffirming the Second Circuit’s rebuttable presumption of equitable mootness upon substantial consummation of a debtor’s plan.

On September 11, 2012, Digital Domain Media Group and various related entities (collectively, "Digital Domain") filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Digital Domain filed several "first day" pleadings with the Bankruptcy Court, one of which is the Declaration of Digital Domain's Chief Restructuring Officer in Support of First Day Motions (the "Declaration").  As set forth in the Declaration, Digital Domain provi

On August 29, 2012, Contec Holdings, Ltd ("Contec") and various related entities filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  Simultaneous with filing its bankruptcy petitions, Contec also filed with the Bankruptcy Court a declaration of the company's Chief Restructuring Officer in support of its first day motions (the "Declaration").  Contec was started in 1978 and provides repair services for cable and broadband operators.  The company services equipment such as cable set-tops, modems and satellite receivers.

There are generally three types of claims in a bankruptcy proceeding: unsecured claims, secured claims and administrative expense claims. Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code governs the allowance of administrative expense claims. Section 503 provides that "after notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses…, including the actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3003(c)(3) provides that "the [bankruptcy] court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed."  For various reasons, creditors sometimes miss the claims "bar date" and need to seek permission from the court to file a late filed claim or deem the late-filed claim allowed.  In order to succeed, the creditor must convince the court that the late claim was the result of excusable neglect.  In re Garden Ridge Corp., 348 B.R. 642, 645 (Bankr. D. Del.

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Radlax Gateway Hotel bankruptcy proceeding regarding the viability of a plan of reorganization that prohibited a bank from credit-bidding on the debtors’ assets.  See Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al., v. Amalgamated Bank, __S.Ct.__ No. 11-166, 2012 WL 1912197 (U.S. May 29, 2012)(hereinafter “Opinion at * ___”).  The debtors in Radlax (“Debtors”) purchased a hotel at the Los Angeles International Airport, along with an adjacent property.

On July 9, 2012, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware disallowed a claim for rejection damages related to a real estate development agreement, because the claim had been released upon the termination of an LLC Agreement, and the underlying ground lease never came into existence.  In re Magna Entm’t Corp., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3089 (Bankr. D. Del. July 9, 2012).  

Background

Earlier this summer, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in the New Century Holdings bankruptcy addressing the definition and purpose of the "Divestiture Rule."  See Carr v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.), Adv. No. 09-52251(KJC)(Bankr. D. Del.

Earlier this month, Tri-Valley Corporation and various affiliates (collectively "Tri-Valley" or "Debtors") filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  This post will look briefly at Tri-Valley's business, why the company filed for bankruptcy as well as Tri-Valley's objectives while in bankruptcy.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(a) states that "[o]n motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity."  Courts construing Rule 2004(a) have found its scope "unfettered and broad."  In re Washington Mutual, Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 49 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009), citing In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N. D. N.Y. 1996).  Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(b) establishes some of the parameters of what is commonly referred to as a "Rule 2004 Examination":