Delaware Bankruptcy Insider:
Be In The Know

About This Blog


The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings.  Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Get Updates By Email

Topics

Judges and Courts

View All
View less

Recent Posts

HELPFUL LINKS

For more information


Ricardo Palacio, Esq.
(302) 504-3718
rpalacio@ashbygeddes.com

Gregory A. Taylor, Esq.
(302) 504-3710
gtaylor@ashbygeddes.com

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
(302) 654-1888               

Showing posts in

Zero Purchase Price Repo Transactions Held to Qualify Under the Catchall Provision of Section 101(47)(A)(v); Liquidation of Disputed Securities Remanded to Bankruptcy Court for Further Review

George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of HomeBanc Corp. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (In re HomeBanc Mortgage Corp.), No. 13-1064 (RGA) (D. Del. March 27, 2014)

In this Read More

Bankruptcy Court Determines Multiple Agreements are Not Integrated; Allows Debtor-Licensee to Assume License Agreement Over Objection of Licensor

In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc., No. 13-12965 (KG), 2014 WL 1053117 (Bankr. D. Del. March 19, 2014)

When faced with the question of whether a debtor-licensee was entitled to assume a software license agreement (the “License Agreement”) while rejecting five other agreements with the licensor, the Honorable Kevin Gross held in the affirmative, relying upon the express language of the various agreements and the necessity of the License Agreement to the debtors’ ability to successfully reorganize.

Prior to the petition date, Physiotherapy Holdings Inc. and its various affiliates (together, the “Debtors”) entered into six agreements with Huron Consulting… Read More

WARN Act Claims Dismissed, But Court Grants Leave to Amend

Czarniak v. Entm’t Publ’n LLC (In re Entm’t Publ’n LLC), Adv. No. 13-50912 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 12, 2014)

On March 12, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Opinion dismissing a class action lawsuit under the Federal Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act“) against certain affiliated non-debtors under the “single employer” theory.  However, pursuant to Third Circuit case law, the Court provided the Plaintiff with leave to amend her complaint.

When a company lays off its employees suddenly and without sufficient notice, as may be the case with companies headed for bankruptcy, the WARN… Read More

Debtors’ Funds Purchased in Section 363 Sale Permitted to be Disbursed to Debtors’ Administrative and Unsecured Creditors Over IRS Objections

United States v. LCI Holding Co., Inc., Nos. 13-924 (SLR), 13-1188 (SLR), 2014 WL 975145 (D. Del. March 10, 2014)

On March 10, 2014, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District Court denied the request of the United States, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), to stay disbursement of funds placed into escrow by a purchaser of debtor-assets intended to satisfy some but not all administrative and unsecured claims asserted against the debtors.  During the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of LCI Holding Company, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”), the Debtors’ prepetition… Read More

Creditors’ Proofs of Claim Denied as Untimely Filed

In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., No. 07-10416 (KJC) (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 4, 2014) (“Cromwell“); In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., Adv. No. 11-53199 (KJC) (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 7, 2014) (“Silva“)

On March 4, 2014, Judge Carey issued a Memorandum denying pro se creditor Cromwell’s motion for an order approving her proof of claim as timely filed.  Then on March 7, 2014, Judge Carey issued a second Memorandum in the same bankruptcy case denying a similar motion filed by pro se creditor Silva.  The Court follows a similar analysis when applying the excusable neglect standard… Read More

Bankruptcy Court Cannot Use Section 105 to Contravene Other Bankruptcy Code Provisions Says The Supreme Court

Law v. Siegel, 2014 WL 813702, 571 U.S. ___ (2014)

Justice Scalia delivered the Opinion issued by the Supreme Court in Law v. Siegel, which reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit allowing a Chapter 7 trustee to surcharge a debtor’s homestead exemption pursuant to Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code despite clear contrary authority of Section 522(k).  During his Chapter 7 proceeding, Steven Law (the “Debtor“) elected to claim a homestead exemption under California state law.  Pursuant to the express language of Section 522(k) of the Bankruptcy Code, the property subject to the exemption was to be… Read More