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

In re Just for Feet, Inc., 375 B.R. 129 (Bankr D. Del. 2007) (Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald)

In these adversary proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Charles R. Goldstein, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Just for Feet, Inc., with respect to the defendants’ ordinary course of business defense under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2). The Court’s ruling was based on the defendants’ failure to prove the “ordinary business terms” element of the defense. Although the defendants’ produced an affidavit from their president in support of the industry terms prong of the ordinary course of business defense, the Court found the affidavit to be insufficient where it merely stated that the affiant was familiar with industry billing practices and that the transfers in question were made in a fashion consistent with those practices. The affidavit failed to identify what the practices were in the defendants’ industry and what the practices were between the debtor and the defendants.

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

In re W.R. Grace & Co., 366 B.R. 302 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald)

The law firm of Speights & Runyan filed thousands of claims on behalf of creditors in the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy. The debtors moved to expunge and disallow 71 of these claims, contending that Speights & Runyan lacked express authority to file the proofs of claim as of the time that they were filed. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that, although a claimant may authorize the filing of a claim after it is filed, if the ratification occurs after the bar date has passed, that ratification is insufficient to make the claim timely filed. Accordingly, because authorization for these 71 claims was not established as of the deadline for filing proofs of claim, the Court expunged and disallowed the claims.

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

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 366 B.R. 295 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald)

In an opinion interpreting the Third Circuit’s Pacor standard for related-to jurisdiction, the Court held that state court actions against the State of Montana in which the W.R. Grace & Co. debtors were named as co-defendants – but which causes of action were enjoined – could proceed to the extent that they sought to establish the liability of the State of Montana. Because Montana would have to bring subsequent claims against the Debtors for indemnity and contribution, the state court actions had no “conceivable” effect on the bankruptcy estate, as contemplated by Pacor, so as to vest the Court with related-to jurisdiction over the claims. The Court therefore denied the Debtors’ motion to expand a preliminary injunction against the suits to the state of Montana.

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

In re W.R. Grace & Co., Case No. 01-01139, 2007 WL 1129170 (Bankr. D. Del. April 13, 2007) (Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald)

The State of Montana filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay to join debtor W.R. Grace & Co. as a third-party defendant in asbestos-related litigation pending in Montana state courts. The claims asserted in those actions arose out of Grace’s former vermiculite mining and processing operation in Montana.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware analyzed Montana’s request under the standard articulated by the court in In re Rexene Products Co. and In re Continental Airlines, Inc. That standard requires consideration of the prejudice and hardships to the parties, as well as the likelihood that the creditor would ultimately prevail on the merits. The court denied the motion, finding that the debtor, the bankruptcy estate and the other creditors would suffer great prejudice if Montana were permitted to proceed against the debtor in state court, and that Montana’s claims for indemnity and contribution were premature, but preserved in Montana’s proof of claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link