⇐  2008 Index  |  ⇐  TOC  |  Next Page   ⇒

2008 NORTON BANKRUPTCY LAW SEMINAR MATERIALS

Appellate Court Decisions Related
To Bankruptcy Cases

By William Norton, III

2007) (Bankruptcy court's denial of motion to dismiss Chapter 11 petition on the ground that it was not filed in good faith was appropriate. Debtor need not be insolvent before filing a bankruptcy petition, so long as it is experiencing "some type of financial distress.")

In re Midpoint Dev., LLC, 466 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. Oct. 31, 2006) (The bankruptcy case of a debtor that no longer exists as a legal entity is subject to dismissal. Under Oklahoma law, a limited liability company that has filed with the Secretary of State articles of dissolution ceases to exist as a legal entity, so the district court properly dismissed the case.)

75. 1113 Collective Bargaining Agreements

Northwest Airlines Corp. v. Association of Flight Attendants (In re Northwest Airlines Corp.), 483 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2007) Debtor's rejection of collective bargaining agreement under S 1113 abrogated the agreement. In contrast to S 365, where rejection is treated as a breach, not termination, of a contract, under S 1113 rejection is the termination of a collective bargaining agreement, thus, allowing the debtor to impose new terms of employment.)

76. 1114 Pension Plans

In re Falcon Products, Inc., 497 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 2007) (As part of a requirement by lender to receive DIP financing, debtor sought to terminate three pension plans as permitted by ERISA guidelines for Chapter 11 debtors, and the bankruptcy court terminated the plans. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") appealed, arguing that the plans should be examined for post-bankruptcy viability on a plan-by-plan basis, not in the aggregate, as the bankruptcy court did. The appellate court disagreed, holding that a plan-by-plan analysis without statutory guidance would be "essentially unworkable." Furthermore, such an approach would force the courts to "pick and choose" which plans to terminate, leaving some workers receiving their full pension benefits while leaving others only what is guaranteed under ERISA.)

In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 456 F.3d 328 (3d Cir. July 26, 2006) (When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks to terminate multiple ERISA pension plans simultaneously, the court must determine the collective impact of the plans on the debtor's ability to continue in business.)

77. 1124 Chapter 11 -- Impairment

Bourne v. Northwood Properties, LLC (In re Northwood Properties, LLC),

 

⇐  2008 Index  |  ⇐  TOC  |  Next Page   ⇒

Copyright 2007 Norton Institutes