Grossman v. Lothian Oil Incorporated, 650 F.3d 539 (5th Cir., 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a case of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, the court recharacterized a claim of a non-insider, declining to create a per se rule that recharacterization could only apply to insiders.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the Matter of Richard Louis Alexander (7th Cir., 2011) U.S. App. LEXIS 17110, (August 16, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In an Order issued yesterday by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. (Omega) chapter 11 cases, Judge Karen Brown has denied motions to dismiss or convert Omega’s chapter 11 cases or for relief from stay filed by Omega’s Senior Lenders and supported by Omega’s Junior Lenders and Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In the view of Lloyd’s List, a leading industry publication:
In the course of the next few weeks, Omega Navigation Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Omega”), an international shipping enterprise, will find out if motions by certain of their lenders to, among other things, dismiss Omega’s chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings have been granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.1 If not, then Omega may be permitted to continue its attempt to reorganize its business under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) liquidation proceeding confirming the LBI trustee’s determination that certain claims relating to TBA contracts do not qualify as customer claims against LBI’s estate.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.
In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.
Giuliano v. Shorenstein Company, LLC (In re Sunset Aviation, Inc.), Adv. No. 11- 50965, Bankr. No. 09-10778, 2011 WL 4002429 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 7, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
On November 29, 2011, AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines and American Eagle, and certain of its U.S. affiliates, including American Airlines and American Eagle, filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
A New York State Administrative Law Judge has denied an application for costs and fees filed by a petitioner who had succeeded in substantially reducing the asserted tax liability through settlement. Matter of Frank M. Grillo, DTA No. 823237 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 3, 2011). The decision turned on whether the position of the Department of Taxation and Finance was substantially justified, and that, in turn, depended upon whether the Department had used the correct address when it sent the Notice of Determination to the petitioner.
On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted amendments to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Amended Rule 2019) and submitted the proposed amendment to Congress for approval. Amended Rule 2019 was approved by Congress and became effective on December 1, 2011. The rule governs certain disclosure requirements for groups consisting of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert in Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 cases.