Coming Soon ...
Watch this space as we introduce our new look in the upcoming weeks. We’ve teamed up with Justia, the premier web design and content partner for lawyers, to deliver better content even faster and to integrate our posts with the premium information on our website. Until then, check out the free bankruptcy resources on our website at www.mha-law.com.
Posted in current-events
Tagged Bankruptcy, Justia, Justia Legal Portal, law, moving, new home, Search engine optimization, Services, Web design, Web Design and Development, Website
To bankrupt or not to bankrupt… Yes, it is a little cliché, but that was the question faced by CEO of Edison International, John Bryson, during the California electricity debacle. Now Bryson, has been nominated for the Secretary of Commerce. The full LA Times article can be found here.
Justia.com Opinion Summary
Defendant owned companies forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but was not a debtor in the proceedings. The plan was confirmed and prohibited suits against the bankruptcy professionals and certain litigation against pre-bankruptcy creditors. Years later defendant sued plaintiff, pre-judgment creditors, and the bankruptcy professionals in an Indiana state court, based on Indiana law. The creditors removed the suit to bankruptcy court (28 U.S.C. 1452(a)) rather than asking the bankruptcy judge to enforce his order. The statute authorizes removal of any claim of which that court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1334, which confers on the district courts original jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code, or “arising in or related to cases under” the Code. The bankruptcy judge determined that the suit against the bankruptcy professionals was barred. Defendant filed an amended complaint eliminating all defendants except plaintiff and stating that the only claims arose from alleged violations of confidentiality agreements. The bankruptcy judge ruled that, as amended, the complaint was unrelated to the bankruptcy and ordered the suit remanded to the state court. The district judge affirmed. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the dismissal was not subject to review.
Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
Posted in appellate court, bankruptcy, business, business filings, ch 11, cir 7, confirmed plan, current-events, data, debt, IND, removal jurisdiction, state court
Tagged Bankruptcy, Chapter 11 Title 11 United States Code, Indiana, law, Lawyers and Law Firms, Services, United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Posted in bankruptcy, ch 13, ch 7, cir 7, consumer, current-events, forecast, foreclosure, IL, individual, Middle class, modification, mortgage, ND, real property, short sale, statistics, subprime, subprime mortgage
7th Circuit Opinion Summaries courtesy of Justia.com
United States v. Rogan
Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Government, White Collar Crime
River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank
Bloomfield State Bank v. United States
Bankruptcy, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law
Costello v. Grundon
Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Securities Law
CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al
Bankruptcy, Business Law, Securities Law
Reedsburg Util. Comm’n v. Grede Foundries, Inc.
Bankruptcy, Utilities Law
Kimbrell v. Brown
Bankruptcy, Injury Law
Posted in 101, 109(h), 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3), 11 U.S.C. section 365(a), 1112(b), 1307, 1308, 1322(b)(11), 1325(a)(5), 1325(a)(9), 1325(b), 1326(a)(1)(C), 1328, 15 USC 1692k(c), 2002, 28 U.S.C. 1927, 3017(d), 342, 362(c)(3)(A), 362(c)(3)(B), 362(c)(4)(A)(i), 363, 451, 18.104.22.168, 502(b)(6), 510, 521, 522, 523, 526(a), 527(a)(2), 528(a), 528(a)(4), 528(b)(2)(B), 547(b), 550, 550(a), 707, 727, 9019, 9023, 9037, adequate protection, adversary, amendment, appellate court, assets, attorneys, audit, automatic stay, automobile, avoidance, bad faith, bank, bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Rules, BAPCPA, blogging, blogs, bubble, business, business filings, call, case update, cash collateral, ch 13, ch 7, cir 7, consumer, current-events, IL, individual, ND, small business
Tagged Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Criminal Law, law, Lawyers and Law Firms, Services, United States, United States bankruptcy court
Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
Justia.com Opinion Summary:
Wisconsin smelting plant owed more than $1.3 million in delinquent utility charges to the local municipal utility when it filed for Chapter 11. Months later, despite the Automatic Stay, a utility company implemented a process pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes and Local Ordinances 66.0809 and 66.0627 by which the plant’s unpaid utility bills became a lien against the Debtor‘s property. Both the Bankruptcy and District Courts found that none of the exceptions to the Automatic Stay applied to make their actions. They were, in fact, a violation of the Stay. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no exception to the Stay applied and the offending utility company creditor did not obtain a pre-petition security interest in the plant’s property by providing services or by giving notice in the form of billing. Finally, the 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court that the utility bills produced did not amount to a “tax or special assessment” that would have exempted them from the operation of the Stay.
Click here to download this Opinion in PDF format
Posted in automatic stay, business, business filings, case update, ch 11, cir 7, current-events, data, docket, Fed. R. Bankr. Proc., opinion, WIS
Tagged Automatic Stay, Bankruptcy, Debtor, Local ordinance, Public utility, United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Wisconsin
to view and download the opinion in .pdf format.
The Upshot: As set forth in §157(a) Congress divided bankruptcy proceedings into 3 categories:
- Cases under Title 11;
- Cases arising in a Title 11 case; and
- Cases related to a case under Title 11.
With respect to the first 2 categories, “core proceedings arising under title 11
, or arising in a case under title 11,” District courts refer proceedings to bankruptcy judges, who intern are empowered to enter a final judgment. §§157(a), (b). Pierce argued that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to resolve Vickie’s counterclaim because his own initial defamation claim against her was a “personal injury tort” – that is, the kind of thing that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear under §157(b) because it did not arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case.
The Decision: A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Pierce and rejected the claim made by the estate of Anna Nicole that the bankruptcy court legitimately exercised jurisdiction over the counterclaim as an adjunct of the District Court or Court of Appeals. Instead the Court held that the 1984 Bankruptcy Act and §§157(c) and 1334(c) required that some matters be sent to the State or District courts for resolution, and nothing about this situation changed that basic division of labor.
Posted in bankruptcy, current-events, individual, opinion, US Supreme Court
Tagged Anna Nicole Smith, Article Three of the United States Constitution, Bankruptcy, E. Pierce Marshall, Executor, Marshall v. Marshall, United States bankruptcy court, United States Supreme Court