Source: http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/wikis/cag/index.php5?title=Other_Federal_Law/Rule&curid=20&diff=905&oldid=839
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 00:49:23
Document Index: 372020138

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1334', '§ 157', '§ 1334', '§ 157', '§ 1412', '§ 1412', '§ 1452', '§ 1452', '§ 157', '§ 1452', '§ 157', '§ 1452', '§ 1412', '§ 157', '§ 1452']

Revision as of 13:38, 3 August 2012 (view source)Dancyc (Talk | contribs)← Older edit
Revision as of 17:05, 4 February 2013 (view source)Byromj (Talk | contribs) Newer edit →
[http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/10-01101-cag_C.%20Daniel%20Roberts,%20Trustee%20v.%20J.%20Howard%20Bass%20&%20Associates,%20Inc.%20et%20al_2011-02-15%2023;05;12.pdf Trustee v. J. Howard Bass (February 16, 2011)]<br>'''Issues''': (1) Whether the grant of power to the Bankruptcy Courts by the United States Congress, including 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), are constitutional; (2) whether Plaintiff’s alter-ego theories survive the various motions to dismiss; (3) whether this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Esperada, a Caymanian corporation that transacts no business in the United States and for which the Debtor had held himself out as president; and (4) whether the Defendants may be substantively consolidated in this case? <br>'''Holding''': The Court finds that (1) this Court and the current bankruptcy system are constitutional; (2) Plaintiff sufficiently pled a complaint for alter-ego liability that survives the motions to dismiss; (3) this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Esperada for the purposes of discovery; and (4) substantive consolidation in general is permitted in the Fifth Circuit, but the issue of whether it is appropriate in this case will be reserved for later determination after discovery and a trial on the merits. Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. <br> [http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/10-01101-cag_C.%20Daniel%20Roberts,%20Trustee%20v.%20J.%20Howard%20Bass%20&%20Associates,%20Inc.%20et%20al_2011-02-15%2023;05;12.pdf Trustee v. J. Howard Bass (February 16, 2011)]<br>'''Issues''': (1) Whether the grant of power to the Bankruptcy Courts by the United States Congress, including 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), are constitutional; (2) whether Plaintiff’s alter-ego theories survive the various motions to dismiss; (3) whether this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Esperada, a Caymanian corporation that transacts no business in the United States and for which the Debtor had held himself out as president; and (4) whether the Defendants may be substantively consolidated in this case? <br>'''Holding''': The Court finds that (1) this Court and the current bankruptcy system are constitutional; (2) Plaintiff sufficiently pled a complaint for alter-ego liability that survives the motions to dismiss; (3) this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Esperada for the purposes of discovery; and (4) substantive consolidation in general is permitted in the Fifth Circuit, but the issue of whether it is appropriate in this case will be reserved for later determination after discovery and a trial on the merits. Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. <br>
+'''28 U.S.C. § 1412'''<br>
+[http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/12-11559-cag_BDRC%20Lofts,%20Ltd._2013-01-31%2023;05;14.pdf In re BDRC Lofts, Inc.(January 31, 2013)]<br>'''Issue''': Did the fact that 23 of 29 creditors, as well the majority of the Debtor's assets, and a pending lawsuit against the Debtor, were located in another district provide sufficient grounds to transfer venue in a Chapter 11 case?<br>'''Holding''': 28 U.S.C. § 1412 allows the Bankruptcy Court to transfer venue in the interest of justice or convenience of the parties. In this case, the primary players in creating the Chapter 11 Plan reside in Austin, the Debtor's books and financial information are located in Austin, and the Court first heard the Motion to Transfer Venue seven months after Debtor filed bankruptcy. As such, there are no issues of justice or fairness that merit transfer of the case. Motion denied.<br>
'''28 U.S.C. § 1452'''<br> '''28 U.S.C. § 1452'''<br>
[http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/11-06020-cag_Parkhouse%20et%20al%20v.%20Johnson%20et%20al_2012-04-02%2023;05;11.pdf Parkhouse v. Johnson (April 2, 2012)]<br>'''Issue''': The plaintiff initiated a purely state-court proceeding against the defendant/debtor long before the debtor filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Is it appropriate for the Bankruptcy Court to remand the case to the state court? <br>'''Holding''': (1) The Bankruptcy Court had only “related to” subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The proceeding did not involve any core issues as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157. (3) Factors weighed in favor of remand, and accordingly, the Joint Motion to Remand was granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). (4) Pleadings filed subsequent to the Joint Motion to Remand were, therefore, dismissed as moot. <br> [http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/11-06020-cag_Parkhouse%20et%20al%20v.%20Johnson%20et%20al_2012-04-02%2023;05;11.pdf Parkhouse v. Johnson (April 2, 2012)]<br>'''Issue''': The plaintiff initiated a purely state-court proceeding against the defendant/debtor long before the debtor filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Is it appropriate for the Bankruptcy Court to remand the case to the state court? <br>'''Holding''': (1) The Bankruptcy Court had only “related to” subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The proceeding did not involve any core issues as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157. (3) Factors weighed in favor of remand, and accordingly, the Joint Motion to Remand was granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). (4) Pleadings filed subsequent to the Joint Motion to Remand were, therefore, dismissed as moot. <br>
Revision as of 17:05, 4 February 2013
In re BDRC Lofts, Inc.(January 31, 2013)Issue: Did the fact that 23 of 29 creditors, as well the majority of the Debtor's assets, and a pending lawsuit against the Debtor, were located in another district provide sufficient grounds to transfer venue in a Chapter 11 case?Holding: 28 U.S.C. § 1412 allows the Bankruptcy Court to transfer venue in the interest of justice or convenience of the parties. In this case, the primary players in creating the Chapter 11 Plan reside in Austin, the Debtor's books and financial information are located in Austin, and the Court first heard the Motion to Transfer Venue seven months after Debtor filed bankruptcy. As such, there are no issues of justice or fairness that merit transfer of the case. Motion denied.
Parkhouse v. Johnson (April 2, 2012)Issue: The plaintiff initiated a purely state-court proceeding against the defendant/debtor long before the debtor filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Is it appropriate for the Bankruptcy Court to remand the case to the state court? Holding: (1) The Bankruptcy Court had only “related to” subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. (2) The proceeding did not involve any core issues as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157. (3) Factors weighed in favor of remand, and accordingly, the Joint Motion to Remand was granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). (4) Pleadings filed subsequent to the Joint Motion to Remand were, therefore, dismissed as moot. Retrieved from "http://www.txwb.uscourts.gov/wikis/cag/index.php5?title=Other_Federal_Law/Rule&oldid=905"