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”).
In the recent decision of Unsecured Creditors Comm. of Sparrer Sausage Co., Inc. v. Jason’s Foods, 826 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 2016), the Seventh Circuit overturned the bankruptcy court’s application of the “bucketing” method to assess an ordinary-course defense to preference liability, concluding that range of invoice payment dates chosen as the baseline was arbitrarily narrow.
On August 24, 2016, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court overruling an objection to claim for reclamation. The decision was issued in the Reichold Holdings US, Inc. Bankruptcy (Case No. 14-12237) in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. A copy of the Opinion is available here.
On June 29, 2016, Judge Sleet of the Delaware District Court entered an order denying a motion for stay of the Debtors’ plan confirmation pending appeal. A copy of the related Opinion is attached here.
Yesterday, Iron Bridge Tools, Inc., a full-service design, development, and distribution company serving the consumer and professional hand-tool market, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Fort Lauderdale (Case No. 16-17505-RBR).
Criminal defendants facing onerous restitution obligations as part of their sentence might contemplate a bankruptcy filing, in the hope of staving off the restitution obligation. In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit recently considered whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision halts a defendant’s obligation to pay restitution and firmly closed the door on that potential gambit.
On October 17, 2012, Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
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":
Commercial, and sometimes residential, construction requires a contractor to obtain a surety bond to guarantee performance leading to the successful conclusion of a project. Upon that occasion, a general contractor will obtain a surety bond from an authorized underwriter.
Introduction