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

Preference Defendant Establishes Ordinary Course Of Business Defense Despite Ruling To The Contrary On Summary Judgment

Burtch v. Revchem Composites, Inc. (In re Sierra Concrete Design, Inc.), Adv. No. 10-52667 (CSS), 2015 WL 4381571 (Bankr. D. Del. July 16, 2015)

After a trial on the merits, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Opinion and entered judgment for defendant Revchem Composites, Inc. (“Revchem”), finding that Revchem established that all of the transactions in question were made in the ordinary course of business, thereby protected from avoidance as a preference.  The ruling came after the Court’s previous Opinion whereby Judge Sontchi held, on summary judgment, that “the parties’ pre-preference relationship was insufficient to establish the existence of… Read More

District Court Finds a Series of Agreements to be One – Reverses and Remands to Bankruptcy Court

Huron Consulting Servs., LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), No. 14-693 (LPS), 2015 WL 4205146 (D. Del. July 13, 2015)

In the spring of 2014, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was presented with a contested assumption dispute involving six agreements between Physiotherapy Holdings Inc. and its various affiliates (together, the “Debtors”) and Huron Consulting Services, LLC (“Huron”).  While the Debtors sought to assume just one – a Licensing Agreement necessary to ongoing operations – Huron argued that all six agreements were integrated and must be assumed together or not at all.  For reasons discussed in our previous Read More

UPDATE – After Trial And Despite Likelihood Of Success On The Merits, Bankruptcy Court Holds No “Cause” To Lift Automatic Stay, Ending Make-Whole Adversary Proceeding in EFH

Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), Adv. Pro. No. 14-50363 (CSS), — B.R. — (Bankr. D. Del. July 8, 2015)

Previously, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary on the issue of whether “cause” exists to lift the automatic stay with respect to the make-whole dispute.  For a general background of the facts and law, see our recent blog post here.  Now, after a three-day trial, Judge Sontchi has held that, under the totality of the circumstances, cause does not exist to lift the… Read More

UPDATE – Bankruptcy Court Continues To Urge Nortel Parties To Come To An Agreement

In re Nortel Networks, Inc., Case No. 09-10138 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. July 6, 2015)

The Delaware Bankruptcy Court heard day-long argument on eight issues raised in motions for reconsideration of the Court’s recent Allocation Opinion—previously discussed here—and issued a Memorandum Order denying reargument on two issues, granting minor clarifications to the Allocation Opinion on four issues, and denying reargument as premature on two issues.  While the Memorandum Order is not all that legally significant, Judge Gross again urges the parties “to discuss how to refine the issues the Movants have raised.  Failing those discussions, the Court… Read More

UPDATE – Significant Changes to DGCL Enacted

After much debate and criticism, proposed legislation making significant changes to the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) – previously discussed here – has been signed by Governor Markell after being passed by the General Assembly, and is set to take effect on August 1, 2015.  The amendments, which were proposed in Senate Bill 75, are notable in two ways:  (a) they prohibit Delaware stock corporations from including bylaw provisions shifting legal fees and costs to stockholder-plaintiffs in the event of unsuccessful litigation relating to an “internal corporate claim”; and (b) they permit Delaware corporations to… Read More