  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
attorney's fees, however, because no provision of § 502(b) prohibits recovery of the attorney's fees.)
EDP Medical Computer Systems, Inc. v. U.S., 480 F.3d 621 (2nd Cir. Mar. 9, 2007) (Second Circuit joins Fifth and Ninth Circuits in holding that the uncontested allowance of a proof of claim pursuant to § 502(a) is a final judgment with res judicata effect, even without the entry of a separate order. The ability to pursue reconsideration of the allowance pursuant to § 502(j) does not defeat finality, for the same reasons that the relief available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) does not defeat finality. Furthermore, where the debtor has received a discharge and the bankruptcy case has been closed, there can be no question of finality.)
VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co., 482 F.3d 624, 2007 WL 942360 (3d Cir. Mar. 30, 2007) (When a creditor alleges facts sufficient to support a claim, the claim is prima facie valid, and an unverified complaint or unintroduced answers to interrogatories are insufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the claim. Here, the assignee of debtor's claims brought an action to set aside a leveraged spin transaction between the debtor and the defendant, and the defendant brought its bankruptcy claims against the plaintiff as successor in interest to the debtor. The plaintiff's defense of the claims included only its unverified complaint and its sworn answers to interrogatories that were never introduced into evidence. The court allowed the defendant's claim and denied all relief requested by the plaintiff.)
In re Oakwood Homes Corp., 449 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir. June 9, 2006) (District Court erroneously held that § 502(b) was clear and unambiguous in requiring the discounting of all pre-petition claims to present value. The Third Circuit reversed the "double discounting" of certain claims to present value where post-petition interest had been disallowed.)
In re Sherman, 441 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. March 23, 2006) (SEC had creditor status despite Receiver's simultaneous claim against debtor for the same violation of securities laws. Receiver's settlement of nondischargeability action against debtor did not preclude SEC's continued prosecution of its claim for funds not recovered by Receiver.)
Peters v. Pikes Peak Musicians Association, 462 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006) (Tenth Circuit joins majority view that claims arising from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are not automatically entitled administrative priority status under § 507 under a theory that the CBA restrictions of § 1113 trump the literal language of § 503. Instead, the Tenth Circuit revised the administrative expense priority test in § 503 to require, instead of post-petition
