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

In re Global Home Prods., LLC, Case No. 06-10340 (KG), 2006 WL 3791955 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 21, 2006) (Judge Kevin Gross)

The movant, a creditor of the debtors, with an administrative expense claim for goods delivered to the debtor within the 20 days preceding the date of the debtors’ bankruptcy petitions, moved for allowance and immediate payment of its claim pursuant to11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9). The court denied the request for immediate payment, finding that the harm to the debtor of being required to make a payment that was not in its budget, and of a type that many other parties had sought, and might in the future seek, outweighed the hardship, if any, to the creditor.

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

In re Aurora Foods, Inc., C.A. No. 04-166 (GMS), 2006 WL 3747306 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2006) (Judge Gregory M. Sleet)

W Top Hat, Ltd. was one of several lenders entering into a credit agreement with the Aurora Foods Inc. debtors prior to Aurora’s bankruptcy. The credit agreement was modified several times prior to the bankruptcy. W Top Hat commenced an adversary proceeding against the debtors, contending that the final pre-petition modification to the credit agreement was improperly made. The bankruptcy court granted the debtors’ motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. W Top Hat also objected to confirmation of the debtors’ plan, contending that the debtors failed to make required payments under the credit agreement. The bankruptcy court overruled W Top Hat’s objection, and confirmed the plan.

W Top Hat appealed both the dismissal of the adversary proceeding and the decisions overruling its objection to the confirmation order. Those appeals were consolidated on W Top Hat’s motion.

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

Finova Capital Corp. v. Cote (In re Finova Capital Corp.), 358 B.R. 113 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Peter J. Walsh)

The debtor sued the defendants in Vermont Superior Court for breach of contract. The Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, which, the Superior Court held, was vested with the Bankruptcy Court. The debtor then commenced an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court asserting the same breach of contact claims. The defendants moved the Bankruptcy Court to abstain, alleging that the Bankruptcy Court lacked personal jurisdiction. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion on the basis of judicial estoppel.

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

Shaw Group v. Bechtel Jacobs Co. (In re IT Group, Inc.), 359 B.R. 90 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)

Shaw Group, successor to the Debtors in this case under an Asset Purchase Agreement, prevailed on its Motion for Summary Judgment against contractor Bechtel Jacobs with respect to its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Bechtel, by an order of the Court dated September 21, 2006. Shaw then moved for prejudgment interest, and the Court granted the motion, holding that the Contracts Dispute Act governed this question.

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

In re Finova Capital Corp., 356 B.R. 609 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Peter J. Walsh)

This case presents the bankruptcy court’s detailed findings and conclusions following a trial on a claim objection. The debtor, Finova Capital, a former middle market lender, objected to the proof of claim filed by Olsen Industries, a company which had been the initial but unsuccessful bidder for the assets of a company to which Finova had been an undersecured lender. The issues revolved around competing interpretations of a March 2000 letter agreement by which Olsen Industries agreed to serve as the stalking horse bidder in the public foreclosure sale of the assets of the company, Consolidated Industries, which manufactured and distributed gas furnaces. Olsen claimed that Finova breached the letter agreement and that it was thereby entitled to millions of dollars in damages. The court found no breach, apart from Olsen being entitled to its $100,000 break-up fee.

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

In re Nellson Nutraceutical, Inc., 356 B .R.364 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Christopher S. Sontchi)

At trial to determine the enterprise value of the Debtors, the Debtors’ expert tendered a valuation opinion based on a metric of EBITDA minus capital expenditures. Because this methodology is not generally accepted by experts in the field, and, moreover, was invented by the Debtors’ expert for use in this trial, the Court held that this method lacked reliability, and the Debtors’ expert’s testimony was therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

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

Shubert v. Premier Paper Prods, LLC (In re American Tissue Inc.), Case No. 01-10370 (KG), Adv. No. 06-50929 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 4, 2006) (Judge Kevin Gross)

This dispute concerned numerous items of machinery and equipment which the Chapter 7 Trustee alleged belonged to the debtors but were in possession of the defendants. In this ruling, the Bankruptcy Court extended an ex parte temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, but with added limitations based on the evidence. The court allowed the planned auction to go forward, but escrowed the sale proceeds from the items to which it was shown the debtors might have title.

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