Skip to content

{ Tag Archives } bankruptcy-court

In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72; 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 705 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009)

John Gallagher & Todd Duffield, of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, consider the ruling by a California bankruptcy court that a chapter 9 debtor is not bound by the requirements of Code section 1113 or any state law in rejecting a collective bargaining agreement. The decision,

Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2009 05 28 Baxter & Baxter, LLP Uncategorized Comments (0)

FREE DOWNLOAD: Daniel Glosband on In re Manhattan Fund Ltd.

In the case of In re Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd. , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92194 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) , the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York overturned a bankruptcy court ruling which would have held Bear Stearns liable for almost $160 million in connection

Also tagged , , , , , , , ,
2008 07 02 Baxter & Baxter, LLP Uncategorized Comments (0)

Mabey on In re Bryan Road

It has long been a controversial practice for a bankruptcy court to enforce a waiver of the automatic stay in a bankruptcy case–especially when the waiver has not been entered into during the course of a previous chapter 11 plan. In In re Bryan Road LLC, a Florida bankruptcy court enfo

Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
2008 04 29 Baxter & Baxter, LLP Uncategorized Comments (0)

James M. Lawniczak on Thompson v. Greenwood

The courts have not agreed on whether 28 U.S.C.S. § 1412 allows a bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction of an improperly venued case. The majority of lower courts have held that a court cannot keep such a case, given the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406 and 1408. However,

Also tagged , , , , , , , ,
2008 03 14 Baxter & Baxter, LLP Uncategorized Comments (0)