Here, the court agreed with the reasoning of opinion more accurately addressed the history and function of safe harbors and it agreed with the position that the states’ historic police powers were not to be superseded by federal law without clear congressional intent. The court further held that section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is not applicable to administrative expense claims. Traditionally, lenders loan money to law and medical graduates, among others, after graduation to allow these individuals to study for their licensing exams or to relocate. The court explained that under rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment will be granted if the moving party can show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts that would have affected its decision. Likewise, they do not abuse the bankruptcy process because nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prohibits filing a proof of claim when the underlying debt is subject to a statute of limitations defense. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, automatic stay, labor law, Norris-La Guardia Act, property of the estate —Andrew M. The dissent emphasized that a stay pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy and asserted that the majority’s interpretation weakens the existing test by permitting the grant of a stay even when monetary damages can remedy the alleged harm. The debtors in sought to enforce the automatic stay against a labor union representing some of the debtors’ employees.
Accordingly, the court held that an allowed post-petition administrative expense claim can be set off against preference liability. Judge Craig’s very thorough opinion disagreed with other federal court decisions from around the country on the same issue and could result in a shift in when and how banks lend to students and graduates. Campbell sought to discharge a bar review loan she received from Citibank. Campbell to pay for her living expenses while she studied for the bar exam. Nevertheless, the court examined the request under rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that creditors who file such proofs of claim do not mislead or harass debtors in violation of the FDCPA. Keywords: bankruptcy and insolvency litigation, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, debt, proof of claim —Brett M. However, the court also concluded that the committee had not shown that the debtors were unjustified in failing to bring suit, given that the debtors were circulating a draft plan term sheet that would settle the causes of action and give the debtors the option to renew the lease of the facility. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. The dissent, however, contended that Third Circuit and Supreme Court precedent requires a movant to demonstrate all four factors to obtain a stay pending appeal. Due to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the court was not required to squarely address whether the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code or the “anti-injunction” provision of the NLA controls when in direct conflict.
Copies of the Plan, Confirmation Order, and Notice of Effective Date are available by clicking the appropriate links on the left.
For further information on the Chapter 11 case, please visit the Court’s website at https://uscourts.gov/, where the official docket can be accessed through the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system.
Borders was a leading national retailer of books, music and movies at stand-alone superstores and mall-based bookstores. Box 1033 Northbrook, IL 60065-1033 [email protected] questions or additional information please contact Janice Alwin at 847-577-1374.
Borders also operated as Borders Books, Walden Book Company, and Waldenbooks. Requests for reasonable referral or finder fees for discovered remnant assets will be considered.
Protecting legitimate expectations of innocent stakeholders and the difficulty of "unscrambling the eggs" following the completion of complex restructuring transactions are issues that a court considers when confronted with any challenge to a plan confirmation order. The appellant pursued with diligence all available remedies to obtain a stay of execution of the objectionable order if the failure to do so creates a situation rendering it inequitable to reverse the orders appealed from. 2008) (de novo standard); Thorpe Insulation, 677 F.3d at 880 (same); Liquidity Solutions, Inc. Gift card redemptions constituted nearly all of Borders' net sales during the last month of the company's operations.
Courts sometimes reject such a challenge (if in the form of an appeal of the confirmation order) as equitably moot because it is simply too late or too difficult to undo transactions consummated under the plan. Chateaugay, 10 F.3d at 952–53 (internal quotation marks omitted). Ball Healthcare-Dallas, LLC (In re Lett), 632 F.3d 1216, 1226 (11th Cir. Cont'l Airlines (In re Cont'l Airlines), 203 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. With respect to the standard applied in reviewing a mootness ruling by a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel, however, the circuits have been split between applying a de novo or abuse-of-discretion standard. Borders filed a chapter 11 plan of liquidation in November 2011.
The defendants sought dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on four grounds: (1) the transaction was protected under the safe harbor provision of 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, (2) the purchasers released the claims through a post-transaction release of the shareholders, (3) the secured noteholders ratified the transaction, and (4) the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for claims of fraud. Despite the opposing decisions on the issue, Judge Craig held that the discharge exemption for “educational benefits” applied only to federal and federally banked lenders. The views expressed in this submission are those of the author and not necessarily those of Richards, Layton & Finger, P. The court noted that the trustee steps into the shoes of the debtor and therefore is subject to the same defenses that could be asserted against the debtor, including the defense applied to claims arising from one of the subject transactions because the debtors played a significant role in that transaction and derived a substantial benefit because they used the proceeds to pay down corporate liabilities. Likewise, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked any controlling law or facts that would have affected the court’s decision. The BAP then noted that the factual findings by the bankruptcy court did not support the heightened standard of “akin to contempt” and reversed the lower court’s decision regarding sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011. § 329 when it ordered the disgorgement of ,000 in legal fees paid to the appellant by the debtor. The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached the opposite conclusion in —Brett M. The labor union filed a million proof of claim based on this rejection. Goldstein, on the brief), Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, and Jay Teitelbaum, Teitelbaum & Baskin, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Appellants. In these appeals that were consolidated for argument, holders of unredeemed consumer gift cards issued by the former book retailer BGI Inc., f/k/a Borders Group, Inc. Behlmann, on the brief), Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Appellees. Concluding further that Appellants had failed to overcome that presumption, the District Court dismissed the appeals. Disclaimer The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon without further inquiry or diligence.We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability with respect to the information contained or services offered on the website for any purpose.Purchases include assets of Crescent Oil, Fresh Cut Lawn & Landscape Service, and Jevic Holding.