  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
inference of scienter and also consider plausible nonculpable explanations, and overall, complaints will survive only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any plausible opposing inference); Erickson v. Pardee, 127 Sup. Ct. 2197 (2007) (seeming to relax pleading rules in prisoner pro se action for indifference to prisoner's medical needs). For recent cases applying Bell Atlantic to avoidance and claims issues, see In re Allserve Systems Corp., 379 B.R. 69 (Bk. D.N.J. 2007 (referring to new standard as "slightly elevated"), and to tort claims against a lender, see In re Alphastar Ins. Group Ltd., 383 B.R. 281 (Bk. S.D.N.Y. 2008). Marrama v. Citizens Bank, 127 S. Ct. 1105 (2007) (no absolute right to convert from chapter 7 to 13; debtor would not qualify to be a debtor under chapter 13 because his misrepresentations re asset values would be a basis for a "bad faith filing" dismissal of a chapter 13 petition).
Court denies auto manufacturer stay relief to repossess tooling equipment which it had largely paid for and was in debtor's possession to produce molded auto parts on the manufacturer's behalf, even though the manufacturer clearly needed to obtain parts from another supplier to avoid interruption in production. Tools were property of the estate. Here, permitting repossession would have a devastating effect on continued operation of debtor's facilities, and the motion for relief was filed only one day after the petition was filed and the case was in its infancy — under such circumstances, burden of demonstrating cause was especially high. The court found no equity, but that the property was necessary for an effective reorganization. In re Plastech Engineered Prods., Inc., 382 B.R. 90 (Bk. E.D. Mich. 2008)
In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing standards for enjoining litigation between nondebtors which require the debtor's likelihood of success in the reorganization, hardship to the parties and public interest factors). See also In re PTI Holding Corp, 346 B.R. 820 (Bk D. Nev. 2006) (granting injunction to stay creditor's action on guaranties when it would interfere with reorganization and no real prejudice; court restrained certain non-ordinary course transfers by principals of nondebtor parties to litigation).
Debtor was casino which was auctioned under confirmed plan. The debtor sought to enjoin post-confirmation actions of the Illinois Gaming Board to revoke the license and specific performance of an alleged obligation not to do so under the plan. The bankruptcy court denied relief, the district court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the plan did not require the IGB or attorney general not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and the bankruptcy court had no authority to issue the injunction because the IGB was exercising its police powers. Village of Rosemont v. Jaffe, 482 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2007).
