Here’s an aggregation of some of my Twitter posts from May 7-10, 2018, with links to important cases, articles, and news briefs that restructuring professionals will find of interest. Don’t hesitate to reach out and contact me to discuss any posts.

May 7 – 10, 2018


  • 9th Cir:  “We hold that the trustee’s adversary complaint contesting the basis for Lee’s exemptions qualified as an objection to those exemptions under Rule 4003.” In re Lee
  • BAP-9th analyzes UCC Section 2-501 and whether a special property interest exists in a “good” or a “future good” and concludes “that a good does not need to be complete in order to be an existing good.” In re Phoenix Heliparts Inc
  • D-ME in Lincoln Paper litigation by the Creditors’ Committee analyzes board duties under Delaware law, dismisses duty of loyalty claims, but sustains duty of care claims vs. board members even though they abstained from the vote that authorized distributions of insurance proceeds to shareholders. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v Meltzer
  • B-SD-CA dismisses involuntary petition for failure to prove Dbtr not paying debts as they gen. come due, but refuses to impose fees and costs because it was a close call.
  • B-ND-IL:  “[N]on-debtor substantive consolidation is not a remedy available to a court sitting in the 7th Cir., [but] even [it] could be considered, it is not clear every creditor of Defendants received notice of the Trustee’s request.” In re Concepts America Inc
  • B-MT:  “The Counterclaims [for postpetition breach of a ‘Bid Agr.’] are not ‘interests’ from which Movants were protected under 363(f) & the Sale Order.” Case provides an interesting analysis of successor liability “interests” and other claims. In re Mountain Divide LLC
  • B-SD-NY:  Environmental claimants are not like the ignition switch claimants and so due process rights weren’t violated. “This case is far more similar to Chemetron where, in the context of tort claims for damages arising out of exposure to toxic substances, the Ct found that the plaintiffs were unknown creditors because their identities were not reasonably ascertainable to the debtor.” In re Motors Liquidation Company
  • B-ED-PA:  While the Trustee’s criticism of the tax return as probative evidence is well taken, the document is nonetheless the only evidence in the record re Incare’s balance sheet position in 2010., so the trustee failed to meet its burden in this fraudulent transfer action. In re Incare LLC
  • B-SD-WV:  I like this quote: “The good faith standard also ‘protects the jurisdictional integrity of the bankruptcy courts by rendering their powerful equitable weapons (i.e., avoidance of liens, discharge of debts, marshaling and turnover of assets) available only to those debtors and creditors with clean hands.” Court ultimately refuses to dismiss ch 11, stating “the Court lacks any basis to peremptorily dismiss this case based on the current record.” In re Jade Investments LLC


  • SCOTUS: The SCOTUS Opinion in Oil States reminds that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine “prevent[s] the Government from using conditions to produce a result which it could not command directly.” Oil States Energy Services LLC v Greenes Energy Group LLC
  • 7th Cir:  “At oral argument, HH described its claim as a ‘content-based, prior restraint, as-applied claim.’ Combining these various terms from First Amendment jurisprudence into a single claim requires some unpacking.  We begin with the framework for analyzing zoning regulations of sexually oriented adult businesses under the First Amendment. . . .  A zoning measure can be consistent with the First Amendment if it is likely to cause a significant decrease in secondary effects and a trivial decrease in the quantity of speech.”HH-Indianapolis LLC v Consolidated City of Indianapolis and County of Marion Ind




Thanks for reading!

©2018, Steve Jakubowski