On June 28, 2012, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granting Ahapura Minechem Ltd.’s petition for recognition of its Indian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Armada v. Shah (In re Ashapura Minechem Ltd.), 2012 WL 2478467 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2012).
Judges Kevin Carey and Mary Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued opinions in In re Tribune Co.1 and In re JER/Jameson Mezz Borrower II, LLC2, respectively, that shake up the landscape for restructuring real estate investments with multiple layers of debt.
In the case of In re Santa Ysabel Resort and Casino, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California heard arguments on September 4, 2012, as to whether the alleged debtor, a tribal casino, was eligible for bankruptcy protection. The court concluded the casino was not an eligible debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.
In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case. In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3003(c)(3) provides that "the [bankruptcy] court shall fix and for cause shown may extend the time within which proofs of claim or interest may be filed." For various reasons, creditors sometimes miss the claims "bar date" and need to seek permission from the court to file a late filed claim or deem the late-filed claim allowed. In order to succeed, the creditor must convince the court that the late claim was the result of excusable neglect. In re Garden Ridge Corp., 348 B.R. 642, 645 (Bankr. D. Del.
In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)
In Re Loucheschi LLC, 471 B.R. 777 (Bankr. D. Mass 2012) –
When a lender makes a loan that does not comply with usury laws it runs a risk that not only will interest and charges be disallowed, but also the entire loan may be declared void. In cases where declaring a usurious loan void is discretionary, one might expect a bankruptcy court to be inclined to do so since it could benefit the bankruptcy estate.
A Georgia bankruptcy court has held that notwithstanding the discharge of an individual in his individual bankruptcy proceeding, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may file suit against the individual as a former officer of a failed bank so long as the applicable D&O policy covers defense costs and the FDIC’s recovery is limited to insurance proceeds. In re Hayden, 2012 WL 3597422 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. July 6, 2012).
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 363(f), a bankruptcy judge may authorize the sale of a debtor’s assets free and clear of liens, claims, and interests. This is meant to allow a buyer to acquire assets without the risk of future claims being asserted with respect to the purchased assets and to maximize the value of a debtors assets, thereby maximizing creditors' recovery.
On June 22, 2012, Judge Robert Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union to dismiss Hostess’s motion to reject certain expired collective bargaining agreements. The court held that section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code no longer applied to key portions of the CBAs because the agreements had expired – certain CBA obligations remained in force only by operation of the National Labor Relations Act. In re Hostess Brands, Inc., 2012 WL 23