In In re Short Bark Industries Inc., 17-11502 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware read the Supreme Court’s holding in Jevic narrowly in connection with a settlement of a dispute on DIP financing.
The bankruptcy bar is abuzz following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 15-649, 2017 BL 89680, 85 U.S.L.W. 4115 (Sup. Ct. March 22, 2017), holding that bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals that do not adhere to the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
A debtor cannot recover sanctions or attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) when the debtor admits to having suffered no actual damages and the filing of a motion for sanctions was not necessary to remedy a stay violation.[1] Denying the debtor’s motion for sanctions, the U.S.
Click here to view the table.
Bankruptcy lawyers across the country learned this lesson in 2015: A fine year can be a flat year.
On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court for the United States unanimously held that an order denying confirmation of a plan is not a “final” order subject to immediate appeal as a matter of right.1 Although the Bullard decision involved a plan proposed under chapter 13 to title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the “Bankruptcy Code”), the holding is equally applicable to bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The following Middle Market insight* originally appeared in the Spring 2015 edition of Disclosure Statement, the official publication of the Bankruptcy Section of the North Carolina Bar Association.
The Bankruptcy Code provides several protections for parties that have supplied goods or services to a debtor on credit prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy petition date.
Two items of interest in the on-going saga of intellectual property enforcement against bankrupt Collezione Europa and its principals, Paul and Leonard Frankel.
FTC Amends Telemarketing Sales Rule: On July 29, 2010, the FTC announced new amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that will prohibit debt relief companies from collecting advanced fees.
On March 22, 2010, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision in the matter of In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC, 2010 WL 1006647, (3rd Cir. Case No.