Yes, on the facts in the Chapter 11 proceedings involving Borders, the insolvent bookseller.

Jefferies & Company, an investment bank, was retained by Borders to pursue reorganisation strategies, including a possible sale of the company’s assets as a going concern. The bank made considerable efforts in flogging the assets, which resulted in an offer from an interested party, but an actual sale of assets did not happen. Jefferies nevertheless claimed the liquidation fee under its agreement with Borders. The company’s creditors opposed this: no sale, no success fee.

The Sixth Circuit in United States v. Carroll, Case No.

As seen in the Spring 2012 issue of West Virginia Banker.

In the wake of the national attention directed towards residential mortgages in the last few years, certain revisions were made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to address perceived deficiencies in bankruptcy proofs of claim. The rule changes were first proposed in 2009 by the Judicial Conference of the United States and became effective December 1, 2011.

Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inAT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that California’s rule against compulsory arbitration of claims for public injunctive relief was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Court also underscored the key points of an enforceable arbitration clause. Kilgore v. KeyBank (March 7, 2012).

Case Background

TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., Case No. 11-1068 (10th Cir. Nov. 15, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its longstanding position, and held that section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does automatically stay the debtor’s appeal of an action commenced against the debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing, regardless of whether the debtor is the appellant or the appellee. This decision aligns the Tenth Circuit with at least nine other circuits.  

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., 454 B.R. 702 (Bankr. N.D. Texas, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

CML V, LLC v. Bax, et al., 2011 Del. LEXIS 480 (Del. Sept. 2, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Affirming the decision of the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, the Delaware Supreme Court held that, unlike corporate creditors, creditors of a Delaware Limited Liability Company do not have standing to sue the LLC’s officers derivatively on behalf of an insolvent LLC.  

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

D’Amico, et al. v. Tweeter Opco, LLC and Schultze Asset Management, LLC (In re Tweeter Opco, LLC), 453 B.R. 534 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In a 17 page decision entered March 9, 2012, Judge Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion for relief from the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay to allow an undersecured creditor to exercise its remedies against a debtor’s collateral.  A copy of Judge Carey's opinion is available here (the "Opinion").  The Opinion was issued in a case nearly identical to that discussed in this post:

In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC, 460 B.R. 38 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT