In re Piedmont Center Investments, LLC (Bankr. E.D. Wis.) Case no. 11-32453

The Bottom Line:

On October 3, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard argument in Francis Harris et al v. Superior Court, Case No. S156555. The issue here is whether insurance adjusters should be eligible for overtime pay under California’s wage and hour laws.

The Bankruptcy Court held a status conference in the Harrisburg Chapter 9 earlier today.  The principal purpose of the hearing was for the court to set a schedule for objections to Harrisburg’s chapter 9 eligibility.  Objections to eligibility and supporting briefs are to be filed by October 28, a response by the City Council is to be filed by November 7, and replies on behalf of the objecting parties are to be filed by November 12.  The judge made it clear that the City Council has the burden of showing eligibility.  Th

In re Provo Gateway, LLC (Bankr. D. Utah) Case no. 11-31259

In re Gelt Financial Corporation (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) Case no. 11-15827

In re East Coast Abatement Co. Inc. (Bankr. E.D. Va.) Case no. 11-73560

In re Summer View Sherman Oaks Apartments, LLC (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) Case no. 11-19800

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

In re MicroBlade, LLC (Bankr. W.D. Wis.) Case no. 11-14981