Still catching up…  Below are my first 24 bankruptcy case tweets of August 2011 and one other tweet of general interest since my last post of August 21RSS Feeds are also available.  All my twitter posts are here (twitter) or here (blog).

The chart from a post entitled We Are Japan, Part #054903512 is the "Money Game Chart of the Day" for 8/16/11.  

Bankruptcy Cases and Topics

  • 10th says BAP lacked jurisdiction to review appeal of order for relief entered by DE BK Ct AFTER eff. date of venue tsf.
  • 5th: Plan adequately preserved Avoidance Actions even though prospective individual defendants not identified therein.
  • 5th: Ct may consult disclosure statement to see if claims retained & post-confirm. debtor has standing to bring them.
  • D-PA considers but wont decide effect of Anti-Injunction Act on §105 inj. ag. enforcement of state jdgmt vs. nondebtor.
  • D-PA wont hear mot. for stay pending appeal of BK order when stay not 1st sought in BK Ct even if a request was futile.
  • 6th: BK trustee liable in official capacity for negligence, but personally only for wilful & delib breach of fiduc duty.
  • B-DE: Propriety of Highbridge DIP loan to LAD judged under entire fairness std, not bs jdgmt, bec of McCourt conflict.
  • B-DE compares terms of proposed Highbridge & MLB DIP loans to Dodgers & finds MLB’s substantially economically superior.
  • B-TN explores law re requirements for seeking BK Ct leave to file suit in state ct v. BK trustee & denies motion to sue.
  • B-PA: For cash coll. mot., income capitalization method preferred over DCF yield capz in valuing hotel in stable market.
  • D-IL: Secured lender is real party in interest who shd be substituted in as Pltf in ch 7 debtor’s action to collect A/R.
  • B-NE reviews 3 approaches developed re whether Trustee can waive individual’s attorney-client privilege (yes/no/maybe).
  • B-OH: Funds in IRS §457 deferred comp plan arent estate property per §541(b)(7)(A)(i)(II), so arent subject to DIP lien.
  • 7th: Trademark license can’t be "implied" where agreement doesn’t say it is, and so rights can be sold in a 363 sale.
  • 7th: Ok to substitute a party into litigation that has succeeded to the interest of the original party, even on appeal.
  • 7th: Order not literally final is appealable if only "ministerial" ruling by the lower court is reqd to make it final.
  • 7th: Universal rule-Trademark licenses aren’t assignable in or out of BK absent expressly authorization in agreement.
  • 7th: Service agreement isn’t a true trademark sublicense and so is assignable in a 363 sale w/out consent of nondebtor.
  • B-TX reviews §502(j) & FRBP 9024/FRCP 60(b) interplay when cr. doesnt answer claims obj. & order entered w/out hearing.
  • B-TX reviews interpretations of 5th Cir "specific and unequivocal" lang re if reorg debtor has standing to sue on claim.
  • B-TX: Listing causes of action in Plan by code section is "specific & unequivocal" enough for standing to sue on claim.
  • B-TX: Reference to Code Ch 5 & §§ 544/547/548/549/550/551 is "specific and unequivocal" to retain §542 turnover claim.
  • B-SDNY: Contract exclusion for conseq dgs for lost profits etc too ambig. to bar "gen dgs" claim for lost profits on SJ.
  • 9th: BK dbtr wanting to equitably subordinate claim of another BK dbtr must seek relief from stay in other dbtr’s case.

Topics of General Interest

  • 300,000 Israelis protest rising prices (equivalent to about 20 million Americans). Imagine ##s if it wasn’t the Sabbath!

Thanks for reading!