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.
Judges and Courts
- Delaware Court of Chancery
- Delaware District Court
- Delaware Supreme Court
- Judge Brendan L. Shannon
- Judge Christopher S. Sontchi
- Judge Kevin Gross
- Judge Kevin J. Carey
- Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein
- Judge Mary F. Walrath
- Judge Peter J. Walsh
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- United States Supreme Court
- Getting Noticed in the Digital Age: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Finds Email Notice Satisfies Due Process but Not Rule 2002
- Third Circuit Reversal Paves the Way For NextEra to Potentially Recover Administrative Expenses Incurred in Connection With Failed Merger
- Delaware District Court Disagrees with Bankruptcy Court’s Ruling and Holds That Committee’s Challenge Rights Survived Entry of the Sale Order and Consummation of Sale
For more information
Ricardo Palacio, Esq.
Gregory A. Taylor, Esq.
Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
Bankruptcy Court Finds “Close Nexus” Between Adversary Proceeding and Plan Necessary to Exercise Post-Confirmation, “Related to” Jurisdiction
Emerald Capital Advisors Corp. v. Karma Auto. LLC (In re FAH Liquidating Corp.), Adv. No. 16-51528 (KG), 2017 WL 663521 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 16, 2017)
In denying the motion to dismiss filed by Wanxiang Clean Energy USA LLC (“Wanxiang”) and Karma Automotive LLC (“Karma” and together with Wanxiang, “Defendants”), the Bankruptcy Court found that it has both “arising in” and “related to” jurisdiction to hear an adversary proceeding filed by the Trustee for the FAH Liquidating Trust (“Trustee”) over two years after confirmation.
A more fulsome history of the bankruptcy cases filed by Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. and Fisker… Read More
No “Related to” Jurisdiction Despite Stipulation and Bankruptcy Court Order Governing the Non-Debtor Parties’ Rights and Responsibilities
Seagate Tech. (US) Holdings, Inc. v. Global Kato HG, LLC (In re Solyndra, LLC), 2015 WL 6125246 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 16, 2015).
In this Memorandum Opinion, Judge Mary Walrath of Delaware’s Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding between two non-debtor parties based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and also remanded similar litigation between the parties back to California state court. Among other things, the Court concluded that an order issued by the Bankruptcy Court approving a stipulation did not confer subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding between two non-debtors alleging state… Read More
Bankruptcy Court’s Jurisdiction Held Not to Extend to Post-Confirmation ERISA/LMRA Claims Asserted Against Reorganized Debtor
Int’l Union v. Visteon Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01742-RGA, 2014 WL 3547014 (D. Del. July 18, 2014)
Through this decision, Delaware District Court Judge Andrews retained jurisdiction over a post-confirmation proceeding commenced by a group of retirees formerly employed by Visteon Corporation (“Visteon”). More specifically, the plaintiffs asserted, under the Labor-Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, that Visteon and others wrongfully terminated their post-employment benefits following Visteon’s emergence from bankruptcy – a right which was reserved by Visteon in its confirmed plan of reorganization. The defendants urged the District Court to refer the… Read More
An Estate Release Does Not Preclude Tort Plaintiffs From Pursuing Direct, Particularized Claims Against Released Parties
In re Caribbean Petroleum Corp. et al., No. 10-12553 (KG), 2014 WL 3360563 (Bankr. D. Del. July 9, 2014)
In this Memorandum Opinion, the Honorable Kevin Gross held (i) that the Bankruptcy Court has post-confirmation jurisdiction to decide the extent and scope of releases contained in plans it considers and confirms and that (ii) the release at issue made by the debtors in favor of their former officers and/or directors did not prevent third-party tort claimants from pursuing their claims against such released parties. In reaching its jurisdictional conclusion, the Court relied upon the Third… Read More