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

Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.), Case No. 02-10429, 2009 WL 150863 (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2009) (Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.)

Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC (“Moss Landing”) appealed a Bankruptcy Court Order that required Moss Landing to dismiss without prejudice the action it filed against the reorganized Debtors in California. In the California action, Moss Landing sought, among other things, injunctive relief requiring the Debtors to remediate environmental contamination they caused to land purchased by Moss Landing prior to the confirmation of Debtors’ Plan. In its appeal, Moss Landing contended that (1) the bankruptcy discharge did not apply to actions against a reorganized debtor for injunctive relief and (2) the Debtors failed to provide it, a known creditor, with actual notice of the confirmation hearing on the Plan, and therefore, Moss Landing could not be bound by the Plan. The Debtors countered that (1) the Plan injunction bars all entities from commencing or continuing any action on account of any claim or liability arising on or before the Plan effective date, (2) Moss Landing, as a successor in interest to a party who settled the remediation claim with the Debtors, was not entitled to notice, and (3) Moss Landing alternatively moved for money damages and because the injunctive claims could be converted to money damages, the Plan injunction bars the action. 

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

In re Exide Techs., No. 02-11125 (KJC), 2007 WL 4268763, – B.R. – (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 5, 2007) (Judge Kevin J. Carey)

A former executive vice-president of the debtor, Exide Technologies, filed a motion to enforce the debtor’s plan of reorganization, arguing that a retirement payment program that he entered into with the debtor was an executory contract that the debtor assumed under its plan.  The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the motion, finding that the contract between the parties to enter into the program lacked mutuality of obligation because the only remaining obligations thereunder belonged to the debtor.  Accordingly, it was not an executory contract that could be assumed.  The Court also determined that the plan was not a retiree benefits program under 11 U.S.C. § 1114 that could not be terminated by the debtor.

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

In re TWA Inc. Post Confirmation Estate, No. 01-00056 (PJW), 2007 WL 2757148 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2007) (Judge Peter J. Walsh)

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

In re Murray, 377 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Brendan L. Shannon)

Although our purpose here at the Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report is to provide news and commentary on commercial bankruptcy cases here in Delaware, the Court published an opinion this week in a consumer case that we want to share with our readers. First, a little background information is helpful. In Delaware, license plates are freely transferable.  There is a vigorous trade in low-digit license plates. The most coveted plates of all are those with a single digit. Similarly, two-digit and three-digit plates are hot commodities that can sell for eye popping prices.

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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

In re Machne Menachem, Inc., 233 Fed. Appx. 119 (3d. Cir. Apr. 19, 2007) (Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes)

An insider of debtor Machne Menachem, Inc. purchased the claims of four unsecured creditors to alter the composition of the class of non-insider unsecured claimants. When the debtor’s plan or reorganization was then approved by voters and confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a former director of the debtor, who also was the proponent of a competing plan, appealed the confirmation order to the district court, arguing that the plan violated the good faith requirement of the plan confirmation provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court, and the Third Circuit affirmed the reversal, finding that the debtor impermissibly gerrymandered the classes to secure the necessary votes in favor of the plan.

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

Forklift LP Corp. v. iS3C, Inc. (In Re Forklift LP Corp.), 363 B.R. 388 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Peter J. Walsh)

In connection with pending litigation over a failed post-petition software upgrade, the plaintiff asserted that even if its challenge to defendant’s right to payment was unsuccessful, the defendant’s administrative claim was subject to the provisions of the confirmed Plan, which, the plaintiff contended, resulted in defendant receiving less than full payment. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on its right to receive payment in full, arguing that the Plan was ambiguous. The Court agreed, and held that the ambiguity in the Plan would not deny defendant its right to payment in full in light of the clear language of the Confirmation Order, the Disclosure Statement and the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

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

Integrated Water Res., Inc. v. Shaw Envntl., Inc. (In re IT Group, Inc.), 361 B.R. 417(Bankr. D. Del. 2007) (Judge Mary F. Walrath)

The Plaintiff in this adversary proceeding sought to amend its complaint to add a claim for breach of contract against the IT Trust. The Plaintiff asserted that the Trust had violated the terms of a settlement agreement and releases contained therein by assigning its claims against the Plaintiff to a third party. The Court granted the motion to amend, finding that there was no undue delay by the Plaintiff, there was no undue prejudice to the Trust, and that the proposed amendment was not futile.

• 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

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