More reported bankruptcy decisions now than any time ever.  30-70 decisions a day being reported compared to 10-25 in past years, with probably double or triple the number of commercial decisions coming down than before. 

Below are my twitter posts of recent cases (and a few other off-base topics) that I think you’ll find of interest, and possibly even helpful to one of your current cases. 

These are my latest posts since my last post on April 11.  RSS Feeds are also available:

  • Excellent post on Weil Bankruptcy Blog by Chris Linden on the enforceability (and unenforceability) of "bad boy" guaranties.
  • SDNY affirms restrictive view of "customer" as defined in the SIPA & denies claim based on unauthorized stock purchase.
  • 1st BAP:§1322(b)(2) not altered by BAPCPA’s "dbtr’s prin. res." or "incid. prop." defs. nor bar to bifurc. of sec. claim.
  • BK-TX: Sanctions imposed for suit brought post-ch 11 confirmation but Ct only allows 13% of fees under lodestar/Johnston.
  • SDNY certifies WARN act class of 200 employees fired from Steve & Barry’s 24 hrs before filing ch 11.
  • BK SDNY: Senior exec. benefit plans to which a general reservation of rights didn’t apply require compliance w/§1114.
  • BK SD IL: Ch 13 untimely claim denied even if cr. lacked notice of bk filing in sufficient time to file a timely claim.
  • BK-OR reviews cases where state law tort/damage claims are preempted by BK Code (wrongful invol. pet, failed to redact).
  • BK-Conn: Claims ag. Bear Stearns for defrauding debtor w/mgmt belong to creditors-not liq. trustee-under Waggoner rule.
  • BK-ED La.: Judicial lien recorded in preference pd. avoidable but $100K appeal bond deposited with Court registry isn’t.
  • BK NM: Avg. payment time & range of pmt. days in year before filing compared to pref pd puts pmts. in ord. course of bus.
  • BK SD OH: If co-signor’s name doesnt appear in body of mortgage, mortgage isn’t enforceable ag. her interest in property.
  • BK ND Tx: Perella not entitled to full success/transaction fee in TX Rangers BK bec it wasnt principal architect of sale.
  • BK SD FL: Rule 9011 safe harbor period is mandatory & failure to comply (even by a few hrs) is fatal to sanctions motion.
  • BK SDNY: Absolute assignment of rents in loan docs prohibited, but lender’s affirmative steps can make assignment work.
  • BK SD FL: "Funds locators," as assignee of ch 11 liq debtors, denied right to unclaimed distribs that revested w/debtors.
  • BK ND IL: Dentists ch 11’s filed improperly to delay collection on jdgmt; filing attys barely escape Rule 9011 sanctions.
  • SDNY: Adelphia Recov. Trust lacks standing to assert sub’s fraudulent tsf claims bec plan paid subs’ creditors in full.
  • BK-AL reviews split re whether "well-pleaded complaint" rule applies in "related to" cases or only "arising under" ones.
  • SDNY wont certify for appeal BK decision-applying Chateaugay-that env. cleanup oblig. wasn’t a dischargeable "claim".
  • BK-MD: Stay relief motion insuffic. to informally extend time for filing nondischarg. complaint; no eq. tolling.
  • CD Cal denies as moot appeal approving buyback of ins. policies under 363, saying PW, LLC case is supportive, but wrong.
  • BK-AZ: Analyzes Till, new value exception, sep. classif. of deficiency, & ext. term in permitting cram down of sec. cr.
  • BK-SDNY: Judge Gerber tackles a party’s rights to lost profits and lost royalties under NY law for breaches of contract.
  • DCT-AZ: Subrogation rts. enforceable in bk re right to vote on a plan. Right of cr. to vote under subord. agr. compared.
  • BK-SD-CA joins other courts & rejects idea that a recorded mortgage assignment is unnecessary via the MERS alternative.

Thanks for following!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

I attached this New Yorker cartoon to my first blog post in October 2005.  Blogging, however, really doesn’t lend itself to incessant barking.  Tweeting does.  Back then, I wrote:

So how did this blog start? Well, many know of my personal obsession (spurred on by my legal learning role models Judge Diane Wood and All Star DH Attorney Dick (the "Mick"–and I’ve got the knees to prove it) Dannenberg) with staying current with developing case law.  During this past summer’s dog days, as the "blog-o-sphere" gradually enveloped me, I decided that the world actually needed another blog–one that kept people current on complex bankruptcy litigation case law developments.  So now, as cartoonist Alex Gregory aptly penned, instead of pointless, incessant barking, I’m blogging.

My obsession hasn’t changed, but now I’m tweeting instead of blogging, though hopefully not pointlessly so.

Here is a collection of my 31 tweets for the first 11 days of April.  RSS Feeds are also available.

  •  WD PA: Owens-Corning postpetition asbestos claims manifested post-plan conf. were discharged via publication notice.
  • Dist. DE denies Hartford SJ mot. to invoke fraud excep.: disp. facts re Yao fraud & if St. Fin Corp was Ponzi scheme.
  • Great NYT Magazine baseball article for those who love great pitching: "The Phillies’ Four Aces."
  • BK SD IL construes "self-settled or similar device" language of §548(e) in case of first impression nationally.
  • BK NEB: dismissal of small biz case not req’d just bec debtor’s 1st plan wasn’t confirmed within 45 days of its filing.
  • Read Willett obj. to "defective 9019 theory" & "weak underpinnings" of Lehman plan’s proposed substantive consolidation.
  • D-NV: Trustee cant compel turnover of estate prop.unless entity has property or proceeds at time turnover motion filed.
  • Innkeepers: Appaloosa has no standing as "creditor of a creditor." Stalking horse bid procedures ok per Lionel std.
  • New FASB Am. as of 6/15: A creditor’s determination of when loan modifications constitute "troubled debt restructurings."
  • 3d Cir: Kontrick/Bowles/Reed Elsevier confirm that Rule 8002(a) time limit for filing notice of appeal is jurisdictional.
  • SDNY: "Unfinished business doctrine" held to apply to hourly & contingency cases in post-dissolution Coudert adv. proc.
  • K&E advocates putting competing plans & discl. statements in Lehman on parallel tracks to allow concurrent consideration.
  • BK-MD: debtor/guar of loan lacks standing to sue lender for misconduct in underlying loan absent indep harm to guarantor.
  • DCT-HAW: Higher contract default interest rate, not post-jdgmt statutory rate, applies after entry of foreclosure jdgmt.
  • BK-WD-ARK asks whether notice to creditor’s prepetition collection atty alone is sufficient notice of claims bar date.
  • Hear 7th Cir arg. re whether secured cr. has statutory right to credit bid claim in debtor’s proposed plan asset sale.
  • Say congrat to Geoff Berman-new ABI Prez-but read Mark Berman’s 2 updates (w/Brighton) on 2d Lien Fin. & Intercr. Agrs.
  • IL DCT reviews 7th Circuit law, applied to the facts, on the nuances of the ord. course of bus. defense to a preference.
  • ED Mich affirms: stock buyout was a fraudulent tsf bec of lack of reas. equiv. value & too specul. intangible benefits.
  • BK SD Miss in 506(a) valuation hearing finds that cost approach is best bec sales comp. & income approach are unreliable.
  • BK MD: In pari delicto doesn’t bar ch 7 trustee’s action ag. parties engaging in postpetition fraud or other misconduct.
  • BK-NC values secured claim at property’s highest & best use, w/out discount for entrep. profit or cr.’s pfd. disposition.
  • BK-VA: former bd members/adv. defs. denied leave to sue current bd. members derivatively through ctcl. & 3d party action.
  • BK-NJ: Atty lien unenforceable ag. funds collected postpetition bec. atty didn’t perfect lien by filing suit prepetition.
  • Hear Lexis-Nexis Real Estate Podcast w/BuckleySandler attys: Robo-Signing Redux: Bankr. Cts. as the Next Battleground.
  • BK-ND Tx: Disgorgement required under §504 for undisclosed comp. sharing with contract attys. Disclosure reqts. outlined.
  • SD Tx reviews Bankruptcy Courts’ civil contempt power and their power to enjoin.
  • BK MD: Ct won’t follow maj. rule that lien stripping is contingent on debtor’s eligibility to receive a Ch. 13 discharge.
  • BK Utah refuses to reach "absurd" result under §546(e) that insulates any avoidable tsf. effectuated through a bank.
  • BK ND CA: Cr. comm. dissolves when case converts to ch.7, so post-conv. services by comm. counsel cant be paid by estate.
  • BK MA: Judge Hillman disagrees with Judge Markell re whether Absolute Priority Rule still applies to indiv. ch. 11 cases.

Thanks for following!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

Too busy to blog, but still trying to tweet cases daily that I think you’ll find of interest (and perhaps even helpful to one of your current cases).  RSS Feeds are also available.  These are my tweets since my last blog post at the end of January:

  • 7th Cir supports claims traders and rejects idea that cure claims are disconnected from the underlying purchased claim. http://bit.ly/fTHilX
  • ND Cal: 502(b)(6) 15% statutory cap based on rent due in 1st 15% of the remaining time not on aggregate rent still due. http://bit.ly/dIGpB
  • Judge Gerber overrules all confirmation objections in a 35 page opinion confirming GM’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. http://bit.ly/eRnHFZ
  • Judge Gerber modifies blanket exculpatory provisions of GM reorganization plan to conform with 2d Circuit precedent. http://bit.ly/gmSgFn
  • Judge Gerber notes appropriateness of provision to pay ad hoc committee professional fees in a reorganization plan. http://bit.ly/ewGjVt
  • BK EDNY rejects cramdown of condo project’s secured lender & thoroughly reviews law re approp. cramdown rate in ch 11. http://bit.ly/gSSHGI
  • Excellent/funny Rich Epling article analyzing Judge Markell’s decision (on appeal now) in the Las Vegas Monorail Case. http://bit.ly/ig66BK
  • BK SDNY holds tort claims of future claimants not extinguished against successor purchaser in a bankruptcy 363 sale. http://bit.ly/e2C8X0
  • UT BK Chief Judge Thurman writes scholarly essay on "Jurisdiction and Rule-Based Time Limitations in Bankruptcy Cases." http://bit.ly/fMnb6t
  • DE BK Atty Ryan Murphy examines Rule 2019 amendments & potential impact on distressed debt investors & ch 11 generally. http://bit.ly/h68X5E
  • 7th Cir denies DIP lender unpaid fees under interim DIP order based on its anticipatory breach of DIP loan agreement. http://bit.ly/hLIMVG
  • SD TX Judge Bohm denies post-confirm trust standing bec Plan lacked "specific and unequivocal" language preserving claim. http://ow.ly/4dHRl
  • Wonder why Marilyn Monroe’s earliest photographs aren’t in print? They’ve been tied up in MD FL BK Ct. But not for long! http://ow.ly/4dIpU
  • VT BK Ct reviews UCC § 1-203’s "Bright-Line" & "Facts and Circumstance" Tests in deciding if agreement is a true lease. http://ow.ly/4dIyA
  • FT reports covenant-lite loans/refinancings are back to 2007 volumes, "though market may be cooling." http://on.ft.com/eKGgvq
  • MA BK Judge Feeney examines concept–and nunc pro tunc effect–of a trustee’s abandonment of the debtor’s property. http://bit.ly/hMQ77x
  • A very good man, Jim Millstein, reflects on a career, his legendary dad, and his next career move. http://bit.ly/gwn2Ca
  • Read 3 part series on Weil BK Blog examining recent cases analyzing the enforceability of make-whole provisions in BK. http://bit.ly/gGleLP
  • WD Mich BK Ct examines "illusive concept" of good faith under Sections 548(c) & 550(b)(1) in lengthy op. with 260 fn. http://ow.ly/4iga4
  • 7th Cir-Posner-holds causation burden in D&O duty of loyalty case lies with defendant to prove its absence, not w/Pltf. http://bit.ly/i0WuIP
  • BK ND IL relies on John Francis’ 1998 article "The Elusive Definitions of NOI & OAR" (1998) in RE valuation case. http://bit.ly/evT3cm
  • ND-OK reviews split of circuits re whether federal ct. has "related to" JD over claims assigned to litigation trustee. http://bit.ly/fAeAY4
  • Leif Clark reviews propriety of 3d party plan releases, related JD issues, & effect of silence to offending provisions. http://bit.ly/ea3gea
  • BK-EDNY holds § 365(d)(2)-not § 365(d)(4)-applies to timing of assp. of integrated franchise ag. and real prop. lease. http://bit.ly/fyiOl8
  • BK ND Ohio Judge Woods says ability to pay off creditors outside of BK provides "cause" for dismissal of a BK case. http://bit.ly/eA0Opk

Thanks for following!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

Here are my tweets for this past week, though expanded into plain english.  RSS Feeds are also available for those wanting them individually organized:

  • A scholarly, wide-ranging opinion by the Hon. Leif Clark examining the intersection of principles of federalism, bankruptcy law, and the evolution of the law of personal exemptions ends narrowly, holding that a Texas debtor transplanted from Nevada can’t use either the Texas or Nevada homestead exemption laws to claim his Texas home exempt under Code section 522, but is instead limited to claiming the federal exemptions.
  • Robert Willens reviews a 12/23/10 IRS Private Letter Ruling regarding a consolidated group parent’s use of its NOLs post-chapter 11 reorganization.
  • Delaware bankruptcy court won’t impose an Illinois constructive trust on a ch 11 debtor’s receivables collections that included within them a nondebtor distributor’s sales markup.
  • Massachusetts bankruptcy court examines the law of debt recharacterization and equitable subordination and finds for the defendant lender on all counts after a bench trial.
  • Northern District of Illinois district court affirms an Illinois bankruptcy court’s temporary stay of collection actions against nondebtor guarantors found to be critical to success of the debtor’s reorganization efforts. .
  • A Massachusetts bankruptcy court reviews the split on whether a chapter 7 trustee’s motion to extend the time to object to discharge is limited to objections by the trustee alone or can be piggybacked by all creditors who subsequently want to object.
  • Bankruptcy counsel who quasi-robo-signed his debtor clients’ names electronically via ECF faces sanctions and state bar review.
  • A settlement agreement default that calls for entry of a judgment 63 times the defaulted amount is enforced by a ND IL district court as shocking, but consistent with terms of agreed-upon settlement agreement.

Thanks for reading!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


Here are my tweets for this past week, though expanded into plain english.  RSS Feeds are also available for those seeking instant gratification:

  • Here’s the 2011 update to my upcoming PLI presentation in Chicago on 4/27/2011 entitled "Treatment of IP Licenses in Bankruptcy":
  • Judge Bohm analyzes at length in Skyport Global whether 15 shareholder counts are derivative or direct under Delaware law.
  • Bankruptcy Court in West Virginia claims "related to" subject-matter jurisdiction over (i) an attorneys’ lien dispute claimed on the unrelated bankruptcy distributions payable to a creditor in a bankruptcy case and (ii) the underlying fee dispute between the attorney and the creditor.
  • Read my latest blog post: "Justice Scalia Won’t Ransom His Principles to Grant Justice Kagan a Unanimous First Opinion"
  • Travails of my client in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune: "Dead Meat" – How a Chicago meatpacker got $8MM & went bust 4 months later.
  • Illinois Bankruptcy Court holds that a creditor lacks standing to allege that the fiduciary duty owed to creditors of an insolvent company renders the company’s debts nondischargeable in the director’s individual chapter 7; that duty is owed to every–not a specific–creditor.
  • Does the Absolute Priority Rule apply to individuals in Chapter 11? Yes, writes Andrew Balbus, Esq. of the Balbus Law Firm in Danbury CT.
  • 7th Circuit holds that directors and officers of an insolvent Illinois company owe fiduciary duties to its creditors, but the Section 523(a)(4) fiduciary exception to discharge would not be extended to render the company’s debts nondischargeable in the D&O’s personal bankruptcy.

Thanks for reading!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

When reading recent US Supreme Court opinions interpreting BAPCPA, the statute’s manifest flaws are the "elephant in the room" (origins of phrase here), and Justice Kagan’s recent opinion for the Court in Ransom v. FIA Card Services , N.A, No. 09-907, 2011 WL 66438 (Jan. 11, 2011), is no exception.  She professes on behalf of the 8-1 majority to employ a traditional approach that looks to the "text, context, and purpose of the statutory provision at issue."  (Op. at 1.)  But it’s really all fiction, because the text is convoluted, the context is manufactured, and the purpose presupposed. 

In his last two lone bankruptcy dissents, Justice Scalia calls out the elephant in the room, even refusing in his latest dissent to be coerced (or better, ransomed) to join the bored and uncaring majority by a Chief Justice who shrewdly assigned this first (and traditionally unanimous) opinion to Justice Kagan, presumably in hopes of compelling Justice Scalia to stop his backbiting and join the team that finds sense in nonsense.

So the Court in Ransom held, seemingly innocuously so, that when determining the "disposable income" that a chapter 13 debtor has available to pay creditors over the 5 year life of a plan, the debtor has no deductible "car ownership cost" expense that can be shielded from creditors if he owns a car but does not make loan or lease payments on it.  While this decision may make eminent practical sense when considered in a vacuum by mandating that a debtor shield from creditors only actual payments and not theoretical payments drawn from an IRS manual, it is the Court’s reliance on "text, context, and purpose" that disappoints here because–as shown below–none prove the point.

For what bankruptcy judge or professional really believes that BAPCPA merits application of the rule that every word in a statute "carries meaning"?  (Op. at 8.)  Certainly Justice Scalia doesn’t.  (Dissent at 2, "The canon against superfluity is not a canon against verbosity.")  And I doubt most readers of this blog do either.  (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

And is the Court properly confident that BAPCPA’s "context" mandates that a debtor "should be required to qualify for a deduction by actually incurring an expense in the relevant category"?  (Op. at 8.)  The "expense" that the Court mandates the debtor incur to be entitled to a "car ownership" deduction is in fact nothing more than a "debt" under a loan or lease that the statute itself unequivocally states can NEVER qualify as a deduction.  (See § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I), "Notwithstanding any other provision of this clause, the monthly expenses shall not include any payments for debts.").  No problem, Justice Kagan writes, because "any friction between the two likely reflects only a lack of attention to how an across-the-board exclusion of debt payment would correspond to a particular IRS allowance."  (Op. at 15.)  And we’re supposed to believe that "meaning, context, and purpose" can be found in Congressional "lack of attention"?

Finally, Justice Kagan writes, the Court’s conviction in the correctness of the result is "strengthen[ed] [by] consideration of BAPCPA’s purpose … of  ensur[ing] that [debtors] repay creditors the maximum they can afford."  (Op. at 9.)  But I thought discretion in bankruptcy judges was precisely what BAPCPA was designed to eliminate!   See In re Pak, 343 B.R. 239 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006) (Tchaikovsky, J.) ("BAPCPA did severely limit judicial discretion for above-median-income debtors").  And isn’t "ensuring that debtors repay creditors the maximum they can afford" through statutory gymnastics just another way of exercising judicial discretion on the grandest of all scales?

In the end, I prefer Justice Scalia’s reluctant dissent and side with his conclusion that "the Court’s interpretation does not, as promised, maintain ‘the connection between the means test and the statutory provision it is meant to implement.’"  (Dissent at 5.)  "Our job," he reminds all, "is not to eliminate or reduce [BAPCPA’s] oddities, but to give the formula Congress adopted its fairest meaning."  (Id.)  While I expect every member of the Court would agree with that statement, I also expect many more lone dissents by Justice Scalia as BAPCPA’s many splits wind their way up the chain.  But Justices Brennan and Marshall relentlessly dissented in every death penalty case, and Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson too.  Better to "stick to your guns principles" (dead phrase’s origins here) than to compromise them for a false unity.

                                  *                               *                              *                              *

Woe to Justice Kagan!  Forced in her first opinion to find Congressional meaning in a hastily-designed and poorly-crafted statute as to which (at least according to the highly-regarded US Bankruptcy Judge, Frank Monroe) "those responsible for … passing … did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act."  (Discussed here.)  Fittingly, Justice Scalia refused to "Ransom" his principles, and so thwarted the Chief Justice’s calculated designs, while most unfortunately dishonoring a Justice who deserved (albeit in another case) a unanimous first judicial opinion. 

And BAPCPA’s sad and unintended consequences thereby continue unabated.  (See others here, here, here, and here).

Thanks for reading!

© Steve Jakubowski 2011

Last year I spent about 75 hours creating an outline on the treatment of intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy for a PLI seminar, which I published here. 

PLI asked me back to speak next year at the 2011 Advanced Licensing Agreements seminar in Chicago on April 27-28.  I just updated last year’s outline, adding another 8 pages.  Here’s the clean version, and here’s the redline showing changes from last year’s draft.  I’m sure anyone involved with IP issues in bankruptcy will find peace of mind from this outline.

Happy holidays!

© Steve Jakubowski 2010

Busy lawyers often assume that it’s ok to skip a ministerial presentment hearing and await the Court’s order scheduling a hearing on the merits.  Today’s opinion from the 7th Circuit in United States v. Hyatt, reversing the finding of contempt and award of attorneys’ fees for failing to respond to two subpoenas served on them by the SEC, shows why it’s a BIG mistake to do so.   Here’s the background from the Court’s opinion:

The SEC initiated the contempt proceeding via a motion for a rule to show cause why Hollnagel and BCI should not be held in contempt.  The motion asked the court to: (1) order them to fully comply with the subpoenas; and (2) order them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their past noncompliance.  Accompanying this motion was a notice setting a date and time for a hearing at which the SEC said it would “present, and seek a hearing date regarding” its request for a show cause order. Hollnagel and BCI interpreted the notice and motion to mean that the initial hearing would be entirely ministerial—that the court would issue a showcause order and set another date on which the merits of
the contempt issue would be heard.  So they didn’t show up.

When the case was called and Hollnagel and BCI didn’t appear, the SEC skipped over the procedural preliminaries and moved right to the main event:  The agency’s lawyers asked the court to find Hollnagel and BCI in contempt.  The court did so, ordered them to fully comply with the subpoenas within two days, and imposed a $1,000-a-day fine for any noncompliance after that date.  The court later rescinded the fine, but left the contempt order in place and ordered Hollnagel and BCI to pay the [$33,000 in] SEC’s attorney’s fees, [which the district court later reduced to $6,000].

The 7th Circuit’s opinion is especially valuable for its discussion of whether show-cause orders are even contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (it concludes they are not despite the fact that lawyers "routinely ask for such orders to be issued" and courts in the district "regularly treat show-cause motions as distinct from other motions").  The opinion is also valuable for its review of the contempt sanctions available under Rule 45 for not complying with subpoenas issued by an attorney (it concludes that "[while] nothing in Rule 45 or the accompanying commentary purports to limit the contempt power to subpoenas issued with more direct district court involvement or to require an intervening court order when the subpoena is issued by an attorney … [i]t does not follow that a contempt motion for disobedience of a nonparty subpoena should be treated in exactly the same way as a contempt motion for violation of another kind of court order").

Notably, the day after the district court entered the contempt order, the non-party (BCI) filed a motion to vacate, arguing that it had been making reasonable efforts to comply with the subpoenas and therefore was not in contempt.  The district judge, however, denied the motion as moot because he thought BCI had waived its opportunity to contest the contempt finding by failing to show up at the September 3 hearing, and it was on this point that the 7th Circuit reversed and vacated the contempt order, saying:

Continue Reading 7th Circuit Shows How “An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure”

No shortage of interesting cases.  Here are a few that I posted on Twitter this past week.  RSS Feeds are also available

  • TX Dist. Ct. affirms decision requiring debtor to pay default rate of interest in cram down of secured claim in plan. http://ow.ly/1uofM
  • Bohm, J. examines whether Defendant filing a counterclaim in response to trustee’s complaint loses right to a jury trial. http://ow.ly/1unW8
  • Effective date of ch 11 plan ruled date conf. order became effective per the Code, not undefined date provided in plan. http://ow.ly/1unBe
  • §1104(c) not mandatory if movant lacks standing or waived rts under subord. agr. Ct also can signif. limit EX’s role. http://ow.ly/1tULO
  • Judge Gross on Target’s sale of Mervyns: §546(e) won’t apply to collapsed trX & T owed creditors a duty too under CA law. http://ow.ly
  • JAX BK Ct. won’t extend automatic stay to Canadian Church that has insuff. min. contacts with US to provide personal jd. http://ow.ly/1tqmx
  • Markell, J. dissects BAPCPA’s history and holds that the absolute priority rule doesn’t apply to individual’s ch 11 plan. http://ow.ly/1tq32

© Steve Jakubowski 2010

Here are my Twitter posts for the past week.  RSS Feeds are also available.

  • On remand from SCOTUS, 2d Cir says making Chubb’s claims against Travelers subject to 1986 confirmation order violates due process. http://ow.ly/1sbpL
  • Debtor’s failure to fund self-insured retention (SIR) doesn’t excuse insurer’s obligation to fund defense costs above SIR. http://ow.ly/1s9Yj
  • 7th Cir. reverses Grede v BoNY: Caplin’s limits on BK trustee’s standing don’t apply to post-confirm. liquidating trust. http://ow.ly/1rJxC
  • Can a man’s ch.7 case be transferred to his first-filed ch.7 affiliate’s foreign ct per Rule 1014(b)? This brief says no! http://ow.ly/1rs7e
  • Philly News sues lenders to extend DIP maturity:says they are retaliating for investigation of "illegal" taping of pre-BK mtg. http://ow.ly/1r133
  • Most notable point in oral arg on my appeal of GM sale: Harvey Miller saying filed proofs of claim total $129B & are mostly products claims.

May your Passover and Easter holidays be meaningful!

Thanks for reading!

© Steve Jakubowski 2010