Summary

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Earlier this month, Bettina M Whyte, the SemGroup Litigation Trustee (the "Trustee") filed approximately 350 adversary actions against various creditors in the SemCrude bankruptcy. The majority of the adversary actions are preference actions under 11 U.S.C. section 547 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Some of the adversary actions, however, allege defendants received fraudulent transfers from various SemCrude debtors (the "Debtors").

On February 21, 2017, Judge Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) in the Outer Harbor Terminal bankruptcy proceeding – Bankr. D. Del., Case 16-10283. The Opinion is available here. This Opinion decided the Debtor’s objection to a claim for breach of contract filed by Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“K Line”).

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).

Summary

In a 24 page decision signed July 8, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to for summary judgment, holding a non-debtor defendant liable with the Debtor as a single employer for alleged WARN Act violations. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background

Summary

In a 13 page decision signed, April 11, 2011, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion disallowing a creditor’s late-filed bankruptcy claim, and held that if there is no legal requirement that a party respond to an affidavit, a lack of response does not bind a party to that affidavit nor can it be considered an admission by that party. Judge Carey’s opinion is available here.

Background

Introduction

On May 31, 2010, Specialty Products Holding Corp ("SPHC" or the "Debtor"), filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This post is one of two posts regarding the SPHC bankruptcy. The first post will look at the Debtor's businesses and events leading up to the bankruptcy filing, while a second post will look at how SPHC intends to deal with the large volume of asbestos claims that forced it to file for bankruptcy.

In the recent decision ofSpizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 2017 WL 75750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.

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.