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.
  • Bohm, J. examines whether Defendant filing a counterclaim in response to trustee’s complaint loses right to a jury trial.
  • Effective date of ch 11 plan ruled date conf. order became effective per the Code, not undefined date provided in plan.
  • §1104(c) not mandatory if movant lacks standing or waived rts under subord. agr. Ct also can signif. limit EX’s role.
  • 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.
  • JAX BK Ct. won’t extend automatic stay to Canadian Church that has insuff. min. contacts with US to provide personal jd.
  • Markell, J. dissects BAPCPA’s history and holds that the absolute priority rule doesn’t apply to individual’s ch 11 plan.

© Steve Jakubowski 2010