Wright v. Owens Corning, 450 B.R. 541 (W.D. Pa. 2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WL 1759992 (3rd Cir. Pa.) (May 18, 2012).
In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P., 2012 BL 140988 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The creditor appealed the denial of its claim for pre-petition interest at the contractual default rate. The district court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court had incorrectly applied an "equitable analysis" in making its decision.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re Shubh Hotels Pittsburgh, Inc., Bankr. No. 10-26337JAD (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July 24, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Settlement of collection disputes over amounts and payment terms for bond-related claims, including in bankruptcy cases, involves issues of binding minority bondholders and releasing the indenture trustee, as well as straightforward determinations of collectability economics. Bondholders unhappy with a proposed settlement can be bound nevertheless when the deal is incorporated into a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and majority bondholders out-vote them, but only if certain requirements are met. A recent bankruptcy court decision, In re Lower Bucks Hosp., 471 B.R.
Reliance Insurance Company in Liquidation (the “Liquidator”) petitioned a Pennsylvania state court for a declaratory judgment holding that Aramark Corporation must reimburse certain state guaranty associations (“GAs”) for claims allegedly improperly paid to Aramark and subsequently presented to the Reliance Estate by the GAs for payment. The Liquidator also sought a declaration that Aramark’s claims against the Estate should be given low priority.
On February 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (the “Department”) announced that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court approved its petition to liquidate First Sealord Surety Insurance.
According to the Department's Commissioner, Michael Consedine, the Department petitioned the Commonwealth Court for a liquidation order because “First Sealord Surety is no longer able to meet its policyholder obligations or pay its debts as they come due.”
In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for the Aged), 659 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the “deepening insolvency” cause of action, which the Third Circuit previously recognized in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2001), remains an independent cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
Background
In the most recent ruling in long-running litigation styled AMG National Trust Bank v. Ries, NO. 06-CV4337, 09-cv-3061 (E.D. Pa.) (decided Dec.
When a tenant under a commercial lease defaults and the landlord wishes to exercise a right to terminate the lease and evict the tenant, the landlord must comply with the terms of the lease and the applicable law regarding termination and eviction. This issue was addressed in a September 8, 2011, decision by the U.S.
On November 23, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition because, shortly before the filing, the state legislature expressly prohibited Harrisburg from seeking relief under Chapter 9.