Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report: Morris James LLP Lawyers and Attorneys

In re Truong, 513 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (Precedential)

The debtors in this Chapter 7 case filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to hold a hearing on whether the Chapter 7 Trustee should be removed under 11 U.S.C. § 324 (a) because of a conflict of interest. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, and the District Court dismissed the debtors’ appeal. The Third Circuit held that the appeal was from an interlocutory appeal, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 05-4781 (3d Cir. Jan. 10, 2008) (Rendell, J.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Seven Fields Dev. Corp., 505 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2007) (Circuit Judge Morton I. Greenberg)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Shenango Group Inc., 501 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. Sept. 6, 2007) (Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith)

In this precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a case of first impression, adopted a standard for reviewing a bankruptcy court’s interpretation of its own order. If the appeal concerns a bankruptcy court’s interpretation its own order, the Court held that an abuse of discretion standard should be applied. If the issue under review presents only a question of law, that review will be de novo.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Haskell v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.), 367 B.R. 516 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Peter J. Walsh)

In this adversary proceeding commenced by investors in reorganized debtor Genesis Health Ventures, the non-debtor defendants requested leave of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to take an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Court denying the defendants, who were senior secured debt holders, the protections of 11 U.S.C. § 1144. The defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending the district court’s decision. The bankruptcy court granted a limited stay of the proceedings, balancing the need to move forward with the possibility that the request may remain before the district court for an extended period without being decided.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Eastern Pilots Merger Comm. (In re Cont’l Airlines, Inc.), 484 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2007) (Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes)

In their third visit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a group of former pilots of Eastern Airlines appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware enjoining them from proceeding to arbitration with debtor Continental Airlines and its pilots. Because the Eastern pilots sought arbitration under their former collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) with Eastern Airlines (which became an obligation of Continental Airlines when it merged with Eastern), and the debtors’ obligations under the CBA had been discharged, the debtors would not be compelled to appear at an arbitration in which no award against them would be possible. The Continental pilots were not a party to the CBA, and could not be bound by its arbitration provision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Advanced Marketing Servs. Inc. (In re Advanced Marketing Servs. Inc.), 366 B.R. 429 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Christopher S. Sontchi)

Simon & Schuster, a creditor of debtor Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., filed a reclamation claim against the debtor, and sought to have a temporary restraining order put in place to prevent the debtor from selling the S&S goods that were subject to the reclamation claim. The court denied the motion in a previously reported opinion. (here)

S&S then sought to pursue an appeal of the court’s interlocutory order denying the TRO motion, moved the District Court for leave to appeal, and requested that the Bankruptcy Court certify that the case was suitable for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). The Bankruptcy Court declined to decide the request, finding that, because the District Court and Bankruptcy Court were being asked to make an almost identical set of findings, judicial resources would best be used by deferring to the District Court to decide the motion for leave to appeal. Moreover, respect for the hierarchy of the courts warranted deference to the District Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hayes v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc. (In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.), Civ. A. No. 06-397 (JJF), Case No. 00-2692 (PJW), 2007 WL 211209 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2007) (Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.)

The appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court imposing sanctions against the appellant. However, although the notice of appeal was dated eight days after the date of entry of the order, it was not filed until fifteen days after the date of entry of the order appealed from. Because the ten day deadline to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) was jurisdictional, the District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Fluor Enters. Corp. v. Orion Refining Corp. (In re Orion Refining Corp.), 355 B.R. 433 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)

The Court granted summary judgment as to two counts of a four count complaint. Because each count sought relief under a common set of operative facts, the Court did not exercise its discretion to enter final judgment on each of the two counts as to which it entered summary judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks