Source: https://www.bankruptcylitigation.blog/twitter-posts/bankruptcy-tweets-of-2011-2012-cases-a-year-in-review-v-8/
Timestamp: 2019-01-23 03:30:51
Document Index: 525057340

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1409', '§363', '§363', '§363', '§363', '§363', '§1126', '§1126', '§101', '§506', '§ 547', '§1409', '§1409', '§1409', '§548', '§548', '§552', '§505', '§502']

Bankruptcy Tweets of 2011-2012 Cases - A Year in Review - V.8 | Bankruptcy Litigation Blog 2.0
Home » Bankruptcy Tweets of 2011-2012 Cases – A Year in Review – V.8
By Steve Jakubowski on October 28, 2012
Read the stupidest responses ever (?) by a BK atty to an order to show cause. He’s LUCKY he was suspended only 60 days. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/NewRiverPlus-BK-SD-FL-EnBanc-9-20-11.pdf …
B-TX: Applies Till to cramdown of apt complex lender using blend of sr./mezz/equity rates at diff. % collateral values. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/CampBowie-BK-ND-Tex-Lynn-8-4-11.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 …
7th: Every other circuit rejects the core/noncore distinction for deciding the claim-preclusive effect of BK jdgmts. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Matrix-7th-Sykes-7-28-11.pdf …
7th questions validity of its 1990 case that Ct’s resolution of core claim isnt res judic on noncore claim not brought. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Matrix-7th-Sykes-7-28-11.pdf …
7th: Rulings in equitable subord. lien adversary & 363 Sale are res judicata on separate RICO/fraud suit ag. bank. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Matrix-7th-Sykes-7-28-11.pdf …
B-TN: Small-$ home ct venue exception of § 1409(b) applies to preference action bec. it "arises in" a title 11 case. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/NukoteIntl-BK-MD-TN-Lundin-9-2-11.doc …
SDNY: Pltfs’ Refco fraud claims not barred by in pari delicto/Wagoner bec suit is for their damages, not dgs. to Refco. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RefcoSecLit-SDNY-Rakoff-9-12-11.pdf …
B-DEL: Settlement Noteholders were temp. insiders of Dbtrs when they got confid. info & participated in settl. negot. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-DEL agrees w/Adelphia that it can disallow a claim on equitable grounds as a nec. remedy in extreme/rare instances. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-DEL agrees that Sec. 510(c) plainly permits a creditor’s claim to be subordinated to another claim but not to equity. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-DEL rejects contention that Stern requires rejection of WAMU reorg plan by improperly settling claims vs JPMC & FDIC. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-DEL won’t exercise discretion per FRBP 8005 to not consider the WAMU Plan bec it might moot appeal of TPS Adversary. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-DEL nixes WAMU plan bec. of possible insider trading claims ag. Settlement Noteholders that plan would wipe out. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/WAMU-BK-D-Del-Walrath-9-13-11.pdf …
B-SDNY: §363(n) violated by potential bidders’ agreement to influence sale price directly, not as "by-product" of agr. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY: Purchaser meets req’ts of §§363(m)/(n) through integrity of conduct during the course of the sale proceedings. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY reminds that consent per §363(f)(2) occurs when agent for lending group properly consents on all lenders behalf. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY: §363 sale isn’t a sub rosa plan bec. best interests test not violated & distrib. of sale proceeds not dictated. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY: §363 sale should be approved when BK-Ct faces the "melting ice cube" situation & sale nec. to prevents loss. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY reviews case law re when prepetition or subordination agreements can/cannot override contrary Code provisions. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY: To Designate votes per §1126(e) must prove that sole/primary goal is to benefit position at others’ expense. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-SDNY: Designating votes per §1126(e) requires proof of voting w/motive to misallocate assets to get > ratable share. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/GSC-BK-SDNY-Gonzalez-7-18-11.doc …
B-MI: Status as a second cousin of debtor’s president does not, by itself, make one the debtor’s insider per §101(31). https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/HarveyGoldman-BK-ED-MI-Shefferly-8-24-11.pdf …
B-TX: Income capitalization approach is most appropriate valuation methodology for a §506 apartment complex valuation. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Amerisouth-BK-ND-TX-Jernigan-8-24-11.pdf …
B-HI: Good faith investors in Ponzi only required to disgorge the profits paid to them by Dbtr, but w/prejudgment int. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Maui-BK-D-HI-Faris-11-14-11.pdf …
B-HI: Ponzi avoidance action timely bec at least one reas diligent cr wouldnt have discovered fraud w/in one year of BK https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Maui-BK-D-HI-Faris-11-14-11.pdf …
D-TX: No error if plan auctions Dbtrs’ member interests by contacting only 19 interested parties, w/out advertising. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/TexasGrandPrairieHotel-ND-TX-McBryde-11-8-11.pdf …
D-TX: No clear error that proper cramdown to sec cr. is over 7 yrs based on 20 yr amort. at 5% interest on hotel props. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/TexasGrandPrairieHotel-ND-TX-McBryde-11-8-11.pdf …
B-MD examines & distinguishes cases where ancillary activities took property outside of Code single asset RE definition https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/LightFootGroup-BK-D-MD-Mannes-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE: Plan exculpation clauses limited to estate/Dbtr/Comm. fiduciaries serving in ch 11 case & don’t apply to lenders. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE: Rebuttal rpt doesn’t alter fact that Dbtrs met burden w/valuation per accepted methods relying on proper projs. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE: Ct can make "informed judgment" of Dbtr’s value only after multiple steps SCOTUS described in Consolidated Rock. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE: Risk of mgmt’s self interest & bias mandates added scrutiny in reviewing dbtr’s valuation based on its own projs. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE: Plan confirmation standards met under "preponderance of the evidence" test.https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
B-DE confirms prepack over 2d lienor’s objection as Dbtrs prove total enterprise value less than 1st priority debt. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/PTLHoldings-BK-D-DE-Shannon-11-10-11.pdf …
1st: Failure to comply w/rule requiring inclusion of statement of issues presented waives the omitted issue on appeal. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AmCartage-1st-Cir-Selva-8-31-11.pdf …
1st: Per MA law, rt to pursue comm. tort claim can’t passed to a foreclosing sec. cr. as proceeds of orig. collateral. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AmCartage-1st-Cir-Selva-8-31-11.pdf …
1st:Per MA law, after-acq prop rts in sec. agr. dont create an int. in comm. tort claim unless it exists at time of agr https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/AmCartage-1st-Cir-Selva-8-31-11.pdf …
8th Cir looks at legislative history behind the "improvement in position" test of § 547(c)(5) for floating liens.https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/QualiaClinical-8thCir-Clevenger-8-30-11.pdf …
B-SC: Ad hoc citizens’ comm. concerned of public impact of hospital closing lacks standing to object to its ch 9 filing https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BarnwellCtyHosp-BK-D-SC-Duncan-10-27-11.pdf …
SDNY: Lehman ADR Order is interlocutory bec. while participation is mandatory, no party must settle its dispute in ADR. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/LehmanBros-SDNY-Buchwald-10-26-11.pdf …
7th: When Ch 7 ttee operates "a losing venture under legal compulsion," resultant torts aren’t admin claims ag. estate. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RTC-7th-Cir-Posner-10-31-11.pdf …
7th: Tort claims in ch 11 arising from bs ops shd get admin. treatment like other admin claims, but not nec. so in ch 7 https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/RTC-7th-Cir-Posner-10-31-11.pdf …
B-DC: Inadequate & dilatory atty disclosures-though themselves ultimately showing no conflict-justify 40% comp. redux https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Ellipso-BK-D-DC-Teel-10-24-11.pdf …
B-DC: Fees disallowed for resisting creditor discovery that only delayed inevitable and ran up fees against the estate https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Ellipso-BK-D-DC-Teel-10-24-11.pdf …
B-DC: Mere representation of Debtor’s affiliate w/potential claim in Debtor’s BK insufficient to disallow compensation https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Ellipso-BK-D-DC-Teel-10-24-11.pdf …
B-DC: Code doesn’t bar representation of entity w/adverse interest but the representation of an adverse interest itself https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Ellipso-BK-D-DC-Teel-10-24-11.pdf …
"Dangers of Premature Plan Filing" @ Weil Bankruptcy Blog. Even worse, see River East @ BK-ND-IL:http://ur.ly/
B-NJ: Even if §1409(b) applied to prefs, petition date, not ch 7 conversion date, wd be the operative date for §1409(b) https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BambooAbbott-BK-D-NJ-Kaplan-10-24-11.pdf …
B-NJ: §1409(b) limited to proceedings "arising in" or "related to" & so doesnt apply to preference case "arising under" https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/BambooAbbott-BK-D-NJ-Kaplan-10-24-11.pdf …
11th: Ponzi is exception to gen. rule that fraud-free equity redemption from insolv. co. is not "for value" per §548(c) https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Perkins-11th-Cir-10-27-11-Hodges.pdf …
11th: Ponzi payments to investors redeeming only worthless equity interests (w/no tort claim) provide value per §548(c) https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Perkins-11th-Cir-10-27-11-Hodges.pdf …
11th-In Ponzi, defrauded investor gives "value" in exchange for return of principal invested, but not as to any excess https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Perkins-11th-Cir-10-27-11-Hodges.pdf …
3:03:17 of Beethoven Concertos 1-5 just uploaded to YouTube courtesy of "TheGravicembalo2"http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGravicembalo2#p/u/2/Mg97Gptg628 …
RT @fpileggi who says the op.’s a gem: Ct. of Chancery Clarifies Rts of Minority Shareholders Whose Equity is Diluted http://bit.ly/ru3iAc
B-CO: Assigning "rents, issues, & profits" of mortgaged property to lender doesnt often create sec. int. in hotel revs. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/HTPuebloProps-BK-D-Colo-Romero-10-24-11.pdf …
B-CO: §552(b)(2) security interest in hotel room revs. only applies if enforceable security int. exists per state law. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/HTPuebloProps-BK-D-Colo-Romero-10-24-11.pdf …
B-HI: Stern doesnt address if Bk Ct can oversee pretrial matters & submit findings and recs, so mand. w/drawal not reqd https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MortgageStore-D-HI-Seabright-10-5-11.pdf …
B-HI sides w/Canopy over Blixseth that BK Ct can enter finding/rec on core matter that it cant constit. enter jdgmt on. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MortgageStore-D-HI-Seabright-10-5-11.pdf …
B-HI reviews case split re whether Stern deprives BK Ct of ability to enter final judgment in fraudulent transfer case. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/MortgageStore-D-HI-Seabright-10-5-11.pdf …
D-MN: Direct appeal to Cir. Ct approp only if uncertainty among BK Cts or if decision is manifestly correct/incorrect. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/Wagstaff-D-MN-Ericksen-10-26-11.pdf …
B-DE: Cts abstain per §505 if review of prop value & tax due is fact intensive or if ruling cd affect unif, assessment. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/IndyDowns-BK-D-Del-Shannon-10-26-11.pdf …
SDNY: Cir. split re whether landlord that didnt file claim could draw down an L/C for damages beyond §502(b) capped amt https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/KPFashion-SDNY-Buchwald-8-29-11.pdf …
SDNY: Prepetition L/C security deposit was properly applied against landlord’s pre-petition claim & not to admin claim. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/KPFashion-SDNY-Buchwald-8-29-11.pdf …
SDNY: Ttee request for nunc pro tunc rejection as of Petition Date seeks relief extending even beyond the minority view https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/KPFashion-SDNY-Buchwald-8-29-11.pdf …
SDNY-Minority view is that rejection is effective when landlord receives unequivocal notice of dbtr’s intent to reject. https://bankruptcylitigationblog.lexblogplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/427/uploads/file/KPFashion-SDNY-Buchwald-8-29-11.pdf …
© Steve Jakubowski 2012