Tag Archives: law

Coming Soon …

Watch This Space

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.

TowneSquare Media, LLC v. Brill (7th Cir.)

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

7th Cir. Opinions

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

Bankruptcy

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

In re Outboard Marine (ND IL ED)(J. Squires)

In re Outboard Marine Corporation, et al., 00-037405
Issued: June 23, 2011
Judge: John H. Squires

Click here to view and download the opinion in .pdf format.

The UpshotWhen sanctions are requested upon a party’s motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(A), two requirements must be met: the motion must be made separate and apart from other motions or requests and “[must] describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b)[,]” and “the motion may not be presented to the court unless, within twenty-one days of service, the non-movant has not withdrawn or corrected the challenged behavior.” The Trustee argues that the Statement of Interest filed by Counsel on behalf of NAEIR warrants sanctions under Rule 9011 because theStipulation released any right NAEIR had to assert a claim against the proceeds of the ACE GL Policies and, as such, the Statement of Interest is not reasonably based in law or fact. Next, the Trustee seeks sanctions against Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which provides as follows: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

In re Adolph, 09-32836 (ND Ill. ED)(J. Goldgar)

In re Braden J. Adolph, 09-32836
Issued: January 28, 2011
By:  A. Benjamin Goldgar

The Issues
: The proper use and interpretation of 11 USC 707(a) and (b), the dynamic duo of bankruptcy dismissal. Under consideration is the distinction between dismissal for cause via 707(a) and the presumption of abuse in 707(b).

The Upshot
: Judge Goldgar engages in a close analysis of 11 USC 707 and determines that bad faith is not a reason to dismiss under 707(a) and only consumer debts can be excepted from discharge under 707(b) – especially in light of BAPCPA. In this case, where an Attorney seeks his fees from a business debtor of his Client, the Court finds him to be out of luck – not a consumer debt, and not a bad faith filing. Boom shakalaka.

Click here to view and download the opinion in .pdf format.

 

lawyers who need lawyers …

Anybody know a bankruptcy lawyer?

Anybody know a bankruptcy lawyer?

Fr0m The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond comes this piece about NYC IP boutique Morgan & Finnegan

Morgan & Finnegan, the New York IP boutique that dissolved in February after a raft of partner departures, filed for bankruptcy Tuesday. The Chapter 7 filing, first reported on the blog Above the Law, came six days after a New York state judge placed the firm into receivership in response to a lawsuit by lender JPMorgan Chase. The boutique, whose revenue declined 38 percent last year, listed $6.37 million in assets and $10 million in liabilities. [read the whole article]

Twitter search results for Morgan & Finnegan