Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report : Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report : Morris James LLP Lawyers & Attorneys

Magten Asset Mngmnt. Corp. v. Northwestern Corp. (In re Northwestern Corp.), 352 B.R. 32 (D. Del. 2006) (Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.)

The appellant, a creditor in the debtors’ bankruptcy case, appealed from a Bankruptcy Court decision denying approval under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 of the appellant’s motion to approve a global settlement of litigation and claims with the debtors. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court decision, holding that the express terms of the settlement agreement required that it be approved by the Court prior to becoming effective, and that the settlement agreement could not be approved because it was inconsistent with the debtors’ plan of reorganization. Because the plan had been substantially consummated, it could not be amended.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., 204 Fed. Appx. 144 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2006) (per curiam)

This decision from the Third Circuit, which was entered per curium and marked “non-precedential,” involved an appeal from a former shareholder of the debtor, Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., who was proceeding pro se. Shortly after the bankruptcy court confirmed the debtors’ plan of reorganization in 2001, the former shareholder, James Hayes, filed a motion for formation of an equity committee post-confirmation. Because of the other appeals he was pursuing in the bankruptcy case, his motion was left pending for over three years, at which point he returned to the bankruptcy court, where the court then denied the motion as untimely and subject to the doctrine of “equitable mootness.” The district court agreed, and so did the court of appeals. Underlying the discussion of that doctrine lay the implicit proposition that the motion was really a challenge to the terms of the plan, though presented procedurally in a manner distinct from plan objections.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Banks v. Moore (In re Banks), No. 06-1828, 204 Fed. Appx. 141, 2006 WL 2818950 (3d Cir. Oct. 3, 2006) (per curiam)

This court of appeals ruling affirming a default judgment in favor of a creditor in an adversary action on non-dischargability turned on the principle that “the debtor who failed to keep the court apprised of his proper mailing address has only himself to blame.” In this case, the debtor’s new address was the county jail. This decision was entered per curiam and is marked as “not precedential.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Astropower Liquidating Trust v. Xantrex Tech (In re Astropower Liquidating Trust), Case No. 04-10322 (MFW), Adv. Pro. No. 05-50867, 2006 WL 2850110 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 2, 2006) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)

Defendants Merrill Lynch Asset Management and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers Limited moved to dismiss a fraudulent transfer complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction was not met, the Court dismissed the complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link