Introduction

On April 1, 2010, Judge Kevin J. Carey , Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion (the "Opinion") in the Spansion bankruptcy rejecting the Debtor's proposed plan of reorganization.

In the recent decision ofIn re: Abeinsa Holding Inc. et al., Del. Bankr. Ct. Dec. 14, 2016), Case No. 1:16-bk-10790, the Honorable Kevin J. Carey confirmed clean energy developer Abeinsa Holding Inc.’s Chapter 11 plan, which is part of the $16.5 billion global restructuring for Spanish parent Abengoa SA.

On October 11, 2016, Chief Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued a letter ruling in which he opined on the appropriate valuation of a first lien. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

In preparing a statement supporting the determination that recusal from a bankruptcy proceeding was unnecessary, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Richard E. Fehling quoted Master Sergeant Georg Hans Shultz from the television sitcom Hogan’s Heroes: “I KNOW NOTHING!  NOTHING!”

On October 16, 2012, battery maker A123 Systems, Inc., and various subsidiaries, filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  A123 started its business in 2001 seeking to capitalize on the growing use of lithium-ion batteries in transportation and energy systems.  According to papers filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the company first began producing commercial batteries in 2006.  See Declaration of David Prystash in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions (hereinafter the "Decl.") at *4.  By

Introduction

Did you do business with Orleans Homebuilders prior to their bankruptcy filing?  Have you received a demand for return of alleged preferential payments?  In a recent submission to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, local developer Orleans Homebuilders stated that it intends to file as many as 400 suits to recover preferential transfers.

Introduction

Summary

In an 11 page opinion published May 27, 2011, Judge Walsh granted a motion under F.R.C.P. 56(d) and quoted another opinion which says “where the facts are in possession of the moving party a continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course.” Judge Walsh’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background