Source: https://www.bankruptcylitigation.blog/twitter-posts/bankruptcy-tweets-of-2011-2012-cases-a-year-in-review-v-7/
Timestamp: 2018-08-16 02:40:38
Document Index: 218933376

Matched Legal Cases: ['§109', '§366', '§366', '§1409', '§1409', '§1521', '§546', '§550', '§546', '§502', '§78', '§548', '§548', '§548', '§546', '§544', '§546', '§546', '§328', '§328', '§330', '§328', '§553', '§553', '§1521', '§366']

Bankruptcy Tweets of 2011-2012 Cases - A Year in Review - V.7 | Bankruptcy Litigation Blog 2.0
Home » Bankruptcy Tweets of 2011-2012 Cases – A Year in Review – V.7
B-NY: Sentimental value of prop. held by family for generations doesnt outweigh benefit to crs. from sale per 363(h). https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Beck-BK-EDNY-Eisenberg-9-6-11.doc …
B-FL: No admin. priority for severance pay arising from prepet. empl. agr. just bec employee was employed postpetition. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RobbStuckyLtd-BK-MD-FL-Delano-9-7-11.doc …
B-AZ: Legal mal. cplt. alleging attys knew of wrongdoing and took no actions to stop it adeq. alleges prox. causation. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RadicalBunny-BK-D-AZ-Case-8-24-11.doc …
B-AZ refuses to dismiss liq. trust legal mal claims vs. attys on in pari delicto grounds at motion to dismiss stage. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RadicalBunny-BK-D-AZ-Case-8-24-11.doc …
B-ID: Boise County didnt meet its burden of proving its insolvency per §109(c)(3) so it’s not eligible under chapter 9. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BoiseCounty-BK-D-ID-Myers-9-2-11.doc …
SDNY: Madoff ttee lacks standing per Wagoner & in pari delicto to bring particip/aiding & abetting claims vs. banks. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvJPMChase-SDNY-McMahon-11-1-11.pdf …
SDNY: Dbtr has the burden of proof on the issue of adequate assurance of payment per §366(c). https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GreatA-P-Tea-SDNY-Seibel-11-14-11.pdf …
SDNY-§366(c) doesnt mandate that only the utility provider in the 1st instance sets the form & amount of adeq assurance https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GreatA-P-Tea-SDNY-Seibel-11-14-11.pdf …
11th: Ponzi payments to equity interests by insolv entity not fr. tsfs except to extent pymts exceeded invested funds. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/perkins-11th-Hodges-10-27-11.pdf …
B-NJ: The Petition Date is the operative date for purposes of determining the threshhold amt per §1409(b). https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BambooAbbott-BK-D-NJ-Kaplan-10-24-11(1).pdf …
B-NJ rejects application of §1409(b) to preference claims. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BambooAbbott-BK-D-NJ-Kaplan-10-24-11(1).pdf …
B-FL: Pleading eq. subord ag. non-insider/non-fiduc requires partic. allegs. of egregious conduct (eg fraud/spoliation) https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/HarbourEastDevp2-BK-SD-FL-Cristol-10-27-11.pdf …
B-MS: Venue tsf of BK denied bec case will be more efficiently & economically administered as affiliate to pending BK. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RedDoorPyMgmt-BK-SD-MS-Samson-11-16-11.pdf …
B-FL: Cr.’s eq. subord. & subrog. claims are solely BK issues not bound by State Ct holding that Bank owed Dbtr no duty https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/HarbourEastDevp-BK-SD-FL-Cristol-10-27-11.pdf …
B-MA: Failure to comply w/FRBP 2002(c)(3) for notice of plan injunction precludes confirmation w/injunctive provisions. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QuincyMedicalCtr-BK-D-MA-Hoffman-11-16-11.pdf …
B-MA: Plan’s third party releases are limited to those who actually submitted ballots accepting the plan. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QuincyMedicalCtr-BK-D-MA-Hoffman-11-16-11.pdf …
B-MA: Release of nondbtrs approp. but identity of interests alone is insufficient to justify releases of dbtr’s D&Os. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QuincyMedicalCtr-BK-D-MA-Hoffman-11-16-11.pdf …
B-MA follows majority that releases/exculp./injunc. for non-debtors may be approp per applic. of 5 factor BK-WD-MO test https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QuincyMedicalCtr-BK-D-MA-Hoffman-11-16-11.pdf …
B-MA notes circuit split re plan provisions calling for expansive releases, exculpation and injunctions of non-debtors. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QuincyMedicalCtr-BK-D-MA-Hoffman-11-16-11.pdf …
D-SDNY: “Residual” waste, even if already cleaned up, can cause “ongoing pollution” per Chateaugay & not be discharged. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MarkIV-SDNY-Scheindlin-9-28-11.pdf …
D-SDNY: NM Env. Div. lack of a right to payment under Water Quality Act is dispositive that claim not discharged in BK. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MarkIV-SDNY-Scheindlin-9-28-11.pdf …
D-SDNY reviews law re extent to which an environmental cleanup obligation constitutes a dischargeable claim in BK. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MarkIV-SDNY-Scheindlin-9-28-11.pdf …
B-SDNY reminds that §1521(a)(4) may not authorize the “fishing expeditions” associated w/Rule 2004 exams. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GlitnirBanki-BK-SDNY-Bernstein-8-19-11.pdf …
B-SDNY reminds that indiv. whose bank records are subpoenaed has standing to quash subpoena served on nonparty bank. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GlitnirBanki-BK-SDNY-Bernstein-8-19-11.pdf …
B-SDNY reviews “pending proceeding” rule & concerns of using Rule 2004 exam to circumvent rts. in pending litigation. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GlitnirBanki-BK-SDNY-Bernstein-8-19-11.pdf …
SDNY D-Cts & BK-Cts seem split on whether-and if so to what extent-§546(e) insulates Madoff ponzi pmts. Cases here: https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/KeyMadoff546Cases-SDNY-2010-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Picard’s common law non-fraud claims ag insiders for failure to supervise, etc, not preempted by NY Martin Act. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Wagoner & in pari delicto rules don’t apply to insiders so Picard has standing sue them for common law fraud. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Failure to give modicum of specificity re §550 subseq tsfs so as to put Dfdts on notice warrants dismissal. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: §546(e) inapplicable to settlement pmts to Madoff insiders bec it’s ag. 546(e) purposes & incompatible w/ SIPA. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Constructive fr tsf claims need not satisfy heightened pleading standards of FRCP 9(b) under BK Code or NYDCL. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Ttee suffic. pled applic. of discovery rule to maintain actual fr. tsf. case for pmts occurring > 6 yrs pre-BK. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: The “Ponzi scheme presumption” establishes the dbtrs’ fraudulent intent as required under the BK Code & NYDCL. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: DCT-Wood-8-31-11 op “instructive & pertinent” re relev. factors in FRCP 12(b) motion to dismiss a Madoff cplt. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsMadoffs-BK-SDNY-Lifland-9-22-11.pdf …
SDNY:§502(d) disallowance of claims by recipients of avoidable tsfs is overridden in SIPA trusteeship by SIPA §78fff-2. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: Wilpon buying fraud ins. & creating hedge fund to limit Madoff exposure suffic. pled wilful blindness to fraud. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: Lack of due diligence in suspicious circs (compared with “red flags”) isnt lack of good faith in SIPA §548 cases. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: Madoff ponzi recipients can rebut §548 actual fr tsf for profits by proving they took in good faith & for value. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY doesnt decide if Madoff Ttee can only avoid profits of §548 2 yr lookback or profits recv’d over whole investment. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: But §546(e) safe harbor protects recipients of Madoff ponzi pmts against §544(b) allegations of actual fr transf. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: §546(e) safe harbor protects recipients of Madoff Securities ponzi scheme transfers unless there’s actual fraud. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PicardvsKatz-Wilpon-SDNY-Rakoff-9-27-11.pdf …
Law of Fraudulent Conveyances Outlined by Virginia Supreme Court http://bit.ly/pnvNJk
B-NJ: Jr. noteholders can’t contest an invol. petition filed by sr. noteholders that the debtor itself didn’t contest. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/ZaisInv-BK-D-NJ-Lyons-8-26-11.pdf …
B-IL: Ctcls. vs. secured cr. necessarily resolved in order to rule on cr.’s claim & parties consented to jdgmt anyway. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/OldePrairie-BK-ND-IL-Schmetterer-8-25-11.pdf …
B-WI reviews when a forward contract matures in order to invoke the §546(e) safe harbor exception to avoidance actions. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RenewEnergy-BK-WD-WI-Martin-8-24-11.pdf …
B-WI: No SJ for either side on ord. course pref. defense where avg days late in pre-pref. & pref pds are 18 v 15 days. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RenewEnergy-BK-WD-WI-Martin-8-24-11.pdf …
D-TX: Inv. Bkr. fees altered per §328 bec circs. of retention “incapable of anticipation, not merely unanticipated.” https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Asarco-SD-TX-Hanen-8-19-11.pdf …
D-TX: Inv Bkr gets enhanced fees per §328 but not $2M success fee bec §330 factors dont apply to §328 fee arrangements. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Asarco-SD-TX-Hanen-8-19-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Earlier ch 15 filing date is proper reference date in §553(b) action brought in subsequently filed ch 11 case. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AwalBank-BK-SDNY-Gropper-8-4-11.pdf …
B-SDNY applies plain meaning rule & holds that omission of §553(b) from §1521(a)(7) probably wasn’t a drafting error. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AwalBank-BK-SDNY-Gropper-8-4-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: Ok for ch 15 dbtr that files ch 11 case so as to preserve avoidance actions to omit key claim info from sched. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AwalBank-BK-SDNY-Gropper-8-4-11.pdf …
REALLY REALLY bad complaints in the 7th Cir. like this one will get you sanctioned, suspended & referred to the ARDC. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/7th-Cir-Opinion-on-Horrible-Sanctionable-Writing.pdf …
B-TX: Code doesn’t prohibit “artificial impairment” by minimally impairing a cr. class to enable cramdown of others. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/CampBowie-BK-ND-Tex-Lynn-8-4-11.pdf …
B-TX: Given Congr. obvious concern for fair treatment of equity, motive in plan to preserve equity isnt inappropriate. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/CampBowie-BK-ND-Tex-Lynn-8-4-11.pdf …
B-DE grants bank motion to dismiss equitable subord claim bec alleging inequitable conduct is required for such claim. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MollIndus-BK-D-Del-Walrath-8-3-11.pdf …
B-DE grants banks’ motion to dismiss recharacterization claims per review of 11 factors relevant to propriety of claim. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MollIndus-BK-D-Del-Walrath-8-3-11.pdf …
B-TN: New legal theory or claim for relief arising out of same transaction as orig. cplt ok after 2 yr. lim pd expires. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AppalachianOilCo-BK-ED-TN-Parsons-8-25-11.pdf …
B-MD: §366 adeq. assurance to utility doesn’t include ordering special condo assessments to be assigned to the utility. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BedfordTownCondo-BK-D-MD-Catliota-8-25-11.pdf …
B-AR: Dbtrs’ prop. interest in noncompete payments received per prepetition APA made their subseq tsf out preferential. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Frankum-BK-ED-ARK-7-18-11.pdf …
B-MA:Allonges dont give bank security int. in install. sale contracts bet consumers & dealers that bank wasnt party to. http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Inofin-BK-D-MA-Feeney-7-27-11.pdf …
Thanks for reading! More to follow.