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

Please Pardon Our Appearance

Hi loyal Delaware Bankruptcy Insider readers!  For the next month, our blog will be transitioning to a new web host.  During this time, please pardon our appearance and any issues that may arise when trying to access documents and links embedded in our posts.  If you are unable to access any documents or links (or if any other issues arise), please do not hesitate to contact Karen B. Owens at kowens@ashbygeddes.com.  Thanks!

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Finds It Has Constitutional Adjudicatory Authority to Enter a Final Confirmation Order Containing Nonconsensual Third Party Releases

In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, No. 15-12284 (LSS), 2017 WL 4417562 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 3, 2017), aff’d by Opt-Out Lenders v. Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC (In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC), No. 17-1461 (LPS), 2018 WL 4521941 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2018)

Following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling six years ago in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the constitutional adjudicatory authority of bankruptcy courts to enter final orders has been challenged in a variety of proceedings, leading to varied interpretations of the reach of the Stern decision.  In Millennium, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was asked Read More

In One of Her Honor’s Last Decisions as a Delaware District Court Judge, The Honorable Sue L. Robinson Clarifies the Distinction Between “Advance Payments” and “Payments on Account of an Antecedent Debt”

Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC v. Kadant Solutions Division (In re NewPage Corp.), No. 16-955 (SLR), 2017 WL 2964803 (D. Del. 2017)

In this appeal to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson examines the distinction between “advanced payments” required under a contract and payments “on account of an antecedent debt” for purposes of section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Litigation Trustee of the NP Creditor Litigation Trust (the “Trustee”) sought to avoid from Kadant Solutions Divisions (“Kadant”) alleged preferential transfers, including a payment in the amount of… Read More

The Bar Date Is Like A Statute Of Limitations; It Must Be Followed

In re Nortel Networks Inc., No. 09-10138 (KG), 2017 WL 2821535 (Bankr. D. Del. June 29, 2017)

In this Opinion, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) rendered a seemingly “harsh” decision necessitated by the “unreasonable relief” requested.  Op. at 16.  Seven years after the September 30, 2009 deadline to file proofs of claim (the “Bar Date”), SNMP Research International, Inc. (“SNMPRI”) and SNMP Research, Inc. (“SNMPR”, and together with SNMPRI, “SNMP”) moved for authority for SNMPRI to file amended proofs of claim and an order adding SNMPR… Read More

Third Circuit Holds That Layoffs Must Be Probable (Not Just Possible) for WARN Act Liability

Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (f/k/a Eclipse Aviation Corp.) (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), No. 16-2203, 2017 WL 3319963 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)

As we have discussed prior, under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, employers may be liable if they do not give fair warning to their employees before a mass layoff.  Liability can be avoided if, among other things, the “mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time that notice would have been required.”  20 C.F.R. § 2102(b)(2)(A).  The question for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals… Read More

Decisions by Third Circuit and Delaware Bankruptcy Court Clarify that “Receipt” under Section 503(b)(9) Requires Physical Possession

Haining Wansheng Sofa Co., Ltd. v. World Imports Ltd. (In re World Imports, Ltd. et al.), No. 16-1357, 2017 WL 2925429 (3d Cir. Mar. 8, 2017) and In re SRC Liquidation, LLC, No. 15-10541 (BLS), 2017 WL 2992718 (Bankr. D. Del. July 13, 2017)

In two recent Opinions, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Delaware Bankruptcy Court clarified that the word “received” in section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code requires a showing that goods were delivered into the physical possession of a debtor or its agent within the 20 days before a debtor’s petition date (the “20-Day Period”).  Under the… Read More

Bankruptcy Court Fails to Find Wholesaler-Debtor Constructively Received Goods Delivered to Third Parties Twenty Days Before Bankruptcy; 503(b)(9) Claim Reclassified

In re ADI Liquidation, Inc., No. 14-12092 (KJC), 2017 WL 2712287 (Bankr. D. Del. June 22, 2017), aff’d Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. AW Liquidation, Inc. (In re ADI Liquidation, Inc.), No. 17-903 (CFC), 2019 WL 211528 (D. Del. Jan. 16, 2019)

In this Opinion, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court examined whether a debtor, formerly known as Associated Wholesalers, Inc. (“AWI”), constructively received goods that were ordered by and delivered to its customers from claimant, Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. (“BBU”) during the twenty day period prior to AWI’s petition date (the “Twenty Day Goods”).  While the goods were never in AWI’s physical… Read More

Creditors Committee Suing on Behalf of Estates Is Unable to Invade Debtors’ Attorney-Client Privilege Without a Showing of Insolvency

Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of HH Liquidation, LLC v. Comvest Grp. Holdings, LLC (In re HH Liquidation, LLC), No. 16-51204 (KG), 2017 WL 1906585 (Bankr. D. Del. May 8, 2017)

This adversary proceeding was commenced derivatively by an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) against the Haggen, Inc. debtors’ officers, directors, and non-debtor affiliates (collectively, the “Defendants”) for, among other things, fraud and fraudulent transfers.  During the course of discovery, the Committee filed a motion to compel production of over 2,000 documents withheld by the debtors and the Defendants based on attorney-client privilege (the “AC Privileged Documents”).  Importantly,… Read More

Insider’s Scoop: An Rare Examination of Challenge Period and Release Provisions in a Final DIP Order

n re Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC, 16-10283 (LSS) (Bench Ruling, May 5, 2017)

In issuing this Bench Ruling, the Honorable Laurie Selber Silverstein of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had the unusual opportunity to analyze and parse challenge period and lender release provisions contained in a final DIP order.  Examining the plain language of the provisions in light of the entire context of the DIP documents before it, the Court concluded that a creditors committee’s investigation period expired long before it was formed by the United States Trustee.  Her Honor also held that the general… Read More

Battle Between Prepetition Lender and Consignor Over Inventory Continues – Bankruptcy Court Holds Parties Cannot Contract to Subject Relationship to UCC

TSA Stores, Inc. v. M J Soffe, LLC (In re TSAWD Holdings, Inc.), No. 16-50364 (MFW), 2017 WL 892329 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 6, 2017)

Prior to the petition date, consignment vendor M J Soffe, LLC (“Soffe”) sold approximately $5.4 million of goods to the Sports Authority debtors (the “Debtors”) pursuant to a Pay by Scan Agreement.  That agreement expressly provided that the arrangement between Soffe and the Debtors qualified as a “consignment” as such term is defined in section 9-102(a)(20) of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).  During the bankruptcy proceedings the Debtors sold the Disputed Goods, and litigation arose… Read More