Walro v. The Lee Group Holding Co., LLC (In re Lee), 524 B.R. 798 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2014) –

A chapter 7 trustee sought a court determination that (1) a debtor’s voting rights in a limited liability company (LLC) were property of the bankruptcy estate, and (2) other members of the LLC violated the automatic stay by taking action to remove the debtor as a member and terminating his voting rights.

In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2014) –

The successful bidder at a bankruptcy auction of a ranch claimed that a cattle chute was included in the sold assets.  The debtors disagreed.  Resolution of the dispute turned on whether the cattle chute constituted a fixture that was part of the real estate.

Colony Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc. v. Colony Lender, LLC (In re Colony Beach & Tennis Club, Inc.), 508 B.R. 468 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014) –

DeGiacomo v. Traverse (In re Traverse), 753 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2014) –

In re Solitron Devices, Inc., 510 B.R. 890 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2014) –

A Chapter 11 debtor moved to reopen its bankruptcy case more than 15 years after it was closed in order to enforce the plan confirmation order to prevent claims by a state environmental agency and other potentially responsible parties for clean-up costs at a landfill.

In re Grubb & Ellis Co., 478 B.R. 622 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) –

Real estate agents who worked for Grubb & Ellis Co. prior to its bankruptcy sought allowance of their claims for commissions as an administrative expense.  Grubb & Ellis addresses the question of whether a commission due for a sale that closes post-petition where the buyer was procured prepetition is entitled to treatment as an administrative expense.

Acceptance Loan Co. v. S. White Transp., Inc. (In re S. White Transp., Inc.), 473 B.R. 695 (S.D. Miss. 2012) –

In S. White Transportation, by remaining silent until after confirmation, a mortgagee managed to retain its lien notwithstanding the debtor’s attempt to discharge it through a plan of reorganization.

RadLAX Gateway Health Co. v. Amalgamated Bank, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 182 L. Ed. 2d 967 (2012) –

In the well-publicized opinion of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC et al., 599 F. 3d 298 (3rd Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,1 held that Section 1129(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code)2 is unambiguous and is to be read in the disjunctive, thus allowing a proponent of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to use the "cram down" power under subsection (iii) of that Section without allowing a secured creditor to credit bid on a sale proposed as part of the plan.

The macroeconomic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on nearly all industries is forcing businesses directly and indirectly affected by the global pandemic to consider restructuring alternatives. Since prospective businesses looking to reorganize or liquidate through the chapter 11 process are likely to need immediate cash in order to operate their businesses, these companies often will look to existing or third-party lenders (and in certain cases, stalking horse bidders or customer groups) to provide them with debtor-in-possession financing (DIP Financing).