Please click below to view and download the Plan, Disclosure Statement and related documents: Plan & Disclosure Statement 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 212.808.7800 Fax: 212.808.7897 James S.
The PAH Litigation Trust (the trustee) asserted fraudulent transfer claims against certain shareholders of Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. The defendants allegedly directed the debtor to overstate its revenue in connection with the marketing and sale of the company. August 23, 2016 The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently issued an opinion on a matter of first impression for the court: whether an allowed post-petition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. As a result, she filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code and sought to discharge the Citibank loan on the basis that it did not fall within the “educational benefit” exemption. The plaintiff failed to make the required showing under either rule 59(e) or rule 60(b). 4, 2016), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or BAP, ruled that the bankruptcy court used the incorrect standard when imposing court-initiated sanctions against a party. In reaching its holding, the court acknowledged a split of authority as to whether filing a proof of claim for a stale claim violates the FDCPA and recognized that the Eleventh Circuit had reached a different result. The days after the CBA expired, the debtors made a proposal to the labor union in respect of a new agreement. On September 26, 2014, the labor union began contacting potential customers of the debtors, discussing the ongoing labor dispute and encouraging the debtors’ potential clients to relocate their events to other sites.Those other cases included: (1) , in which the United States District Court for the District of Delaware determined that PHP LLC, a group of creditors established pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan to liquidate assets of PHP Corporation, was not prohibited from asserting avoidance actions under state law (291 B. Judge Craig also ruled that the opposing decisions on the issues cited by Citibank were not persuasive because none of those cases interpreted how the term “educational benefit” was defined in the bankruptcy code. 15, 2015), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dismissed an adversary proceeding upon determining that the debtors had released the asserted claims through an earlier settlement agreement. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, debt, proof of claim —Brendan J. The appellant argued that his failure to obtain the debtor’s signature on documents was a genuine oversight, was not done in bad faith and was therefore not sanctionable under 11 U. It first determined that the labor union’s activities fell within the scope of the NLA and were not one of the enumerated exceptions under the NLA, such as for unlawful conduct.Mootness "Mootness" is a doctrine that precludes a reviewing court from reaching the underlying merits of a controversy. To avoid dismissal on the basis of equitable mootness under Chateaugay, an appellant must demonstrate that: 1. (In re GWI PCS 1 Inc.), 230 F.3d 788, 799–800 (5th Cir. Outlook To the extent that any ambiguity existed in the Second Circuit regarding application of the doctrine of equitable mootness to appeals arising from chapter 11 liquidation proceedings, BGI definitively dispels it.In federal courts, an appeal can be either constitutionally or equitably moot. The court can still order some effective relief; 2. 2000) (same), with Charter, 691 F.3d at 483 (abuse-of-discretion standard); Paige, 584 F.3d at 1339–40 (same); and Cont'l Airlines, 203 F.3d at 210 (same). ("Borders"), filed for chapter 11 protection in February 2011 in the Southern District of New York. Interestingly, the court expressly left for "a future panel of our Court the question of whether a district court may also invoke equitable mootness in the context of a Chapter 7 liquidation." The principal thrust of the ruling, however, is directed more toward the consequences of failing to take appropriate and timely action—a strategic blunder on the part of the GC Claimants that could readily have been avoided. at 483, under which we examine conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error, see Highmark Inc.
Answering “no,” the court explained that “known” creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor—a group that includes both “claimant[s] whose identity is actually known to the debtor [and] claimant [s] whose identity is reasonably ascertainable”—must be afforded “actual written notice of the bankruptcy filing and the bar date.” BGI I, 476 B. We review a district court's dismissal on grounds of equitable mootness for abuse of discretion, id. These cases suggest that the doctrine of equitable mootness has already been accorded broad reach, without apparent ill effect.
The defendants responded that section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code preempts state fraudulent transfer law. 2003)); (2) , in which the court concluding that section 546(e) does not apply to individual creditors asserting fraudulent transfer claims under state law because “the historic powers of the States were not superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” 503 B. Campbell to be a law student to qualify for the loan did not turn an “arm’s length consumer credit transaction into a ‘benefit’ that would make it eligible for the exemption.” In effect, Judge Craig ruled that the bar expenses loan had the same characteristics as an ordinary consumer loan, regardless of whether Ms. It reasoned that the settlement agreement was intentionally broad and intended to achieve a global resolution of all ongoing disputes between the parties, including those relating to the letter, which predated the 2013 settlement agreement. In reaching this holding, the court determined that, as alleged in the complaint, the remaining fraudulent transactions plausibly amounted to outright looting of the debtors’ corporate assets from which the debtors received no benefit. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, debt, proof of claim —Alexander G. The bankruptcy court’s decision was not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record and therefore the BAP affirmed it. The BAP noted that, in failing to secure the debtor’s signature on numerous filings, the appellant had violated the bankruptcy court’s local rules and the bankruptcy court had, therefore, the authority to suspend the appellant’s privileges. § 105 in order to justify the sanction and that the issue of the appellant’s “bad faith” was therefore irrelevant. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. At the subsequent hearing, the debtors modified their request for relief, asking the court for only a declaratory judgment that the labor union’s contact with the potential clients violated the automatic stay.
The trustee argued that the safe harbor provision of 546(e) is inapplicable to its state law fraudulent transfer claims. Judge Craig stated that merely because Citibank required Ms. whether known or unknown.” Applying Minnesota law, which governed the settlement agreement, the Bankruptcy Court determined that AFI had released its claims against Hormel. However, the court also held that other of the trustee’s claims were not subject to dismissal on the basis of the defense will not be applied where outright fraud or looting is committed against the debtor and that fraud or looting does not benefit the debtor in any way. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to raise several new arguments and cautioned that a motion to reconsider is not the appropriate occasion to repeat previously rejected arguments or to make new arguments that previously could have been made. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. The BAP subsequently determined that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted 11 U. The BAP agreed with the bankruptcy court that the applicable standard was whether the ,000 the appellant was paid was excessive for what he accomplished for the debtor, not whether the amount was equal to the time and expense incurred by the appellant. On October 8, 2014, the debtors filed a motion for an order to enforce the automatic stay against the labor union, claiming that it was violating the stay and demanding attorney fees and expenses.
(f/k/a Coldwater Creek Inc.) and its affiliated Debtors (collectively, the "Debtors") each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
The Debtors' cases are pending before the Honorable Brendan L. 844 King Street, Suite 2207 Wilmington, DE 19801 302.573.6491 Fax: 302.573.6497 Benjamin Hackman, Esq.
Behlmann, on the brief), Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Appellees. Concluding further that Appellants had failed to overcome that presumption, the District Court dismissed the appeals.