  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
comprehensively mediated dispute which gave the debtor control of property, gave creditor d/t to secure debt, and resulted in other benefits to both parties was for a reasonably equivalent value).
In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., 390 B.R. 140 (Bk. D. Del. 2008) (court approves settlement of claims of multiple parties and classes as complying with settlement approval rules and confirmation requirements; plan did not accomplish substantive consolidation).
In re Seminole Walls & Ceilings Corp., 388 B.R. 386 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (party to unapproved settlement does not have unilateral right of repudiation prior to court approval, but is bound to assure certainty; court notes split of authority and extensively discusses validity of settlements at various preliminary stages). Compare In re Golden Oil Co., 2008 WL 205334 (5th Cir. 2008) (no enforceable settlement agreement when material terms left for future negotiations).
Foreign creditors filed contingent proofs of claim for indemnity or contribution. Held, that such filings did not render their state law claims against nondebtor foreign subsidiaries core proceedings or create jurisdiction over claims against the foreign creditors. The Court held that claims against nondebtors are generally noncore and do not become core because of a close connection between debtor and nondebtor. And, since the claims were noncore, a forum selection clause should be enforced unless it would violate a strong public policy of the forum. In re Exide Technologies, 544 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008).
The Debtor brought an action seeking recovery for preferences and fraudulent conveyances arising from the repurchase of commercial paper, and the lenders moved to withdraw the reference. The District Court held there were two separate issues--one a pure bankruptcy issue and, if this was decided against the lenders, an issue involving the interaction between federal and bankruptcy law as to which withdrawal was required. Under these circumstances, the Court held immediate withdrawal was not necessary but should be deferred pending a decision on the bankruptcy issue. In re Enron Corp., 388 B.R. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Several cases have considered whether a particular case was subjection to 28 U.S.C. S157(b)(5) which requires tort and pi cases to be tried in the district court. In re Smith, 2008 WL 2663341 (Bk. D. Nev. 2008) (provision not jurisdictional; bankruptcy court has jurisdiction absent withdrawal motion); In re Alper Holdings USA, 2008 WL 1389771 (Bk. S.D.N.Y. 2008) (objection to proofs of claim for environmental contamination and remediation did not involve personal injury tort claims but claims allowance and did not have to be tried in district court); In re Grimes, 2008 WL 901690 (Bk. N.D.W. Va. 2008) (claims for humiliation and embarrassment as a result of negligent financial advice did not have to be tried in district court; no bodily harm).
Normally, claims by nondebtor against nondebtor are not within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Nevertheless, In In re Mission Bay Ski & Bike, Inc., 2008 WL 5273721 (Bk. N.D. Ill. 2008) the court held that it had related to jurisdiction over a creditor's action against a guarantor of the debtor's debt where, as in the case, the guarantor had waived all rights of subrogation, indemnity, etc. against the debtor and the debtor could enforce the waiver. The court reasoned that, under these circumstances, any recovery by the creditor would reduce claims against the debtor. See also Navon v. Mariculture Prods. Ltd., 395 B.R. 818 (D. Conn. 2008) (related to jurisdiction over state law contract and unjust enrichment claims asserted against a defendant solely owned by and affiliated with a chapter 7 debtor because of the possible impact on distributions).Assume a bankruptcy court renders a final decision on a matter, but the district court reverses and remands for further proceedings of some sort. Is the district court order final for appellate purposes? There are a number of opinions on this issue, most holding the matter not final unless the actions required on remand are essentially ministerial. A sampling of cases is In re Gruseck & Son, Inc., 558 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand to prove element of preference is not final); In re Holland, 539 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court remand to decide exemption issue under Florida law not a final order); In re Gadzooks, Inc., 2008 WL 4155354 (5th Cir. 2008) (remand of decision awarding fees to counsel for shareholder would require substantial relitigation); Moglia v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4810080 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court decision vacating stay of adversary proceeding for arbitration and remanding not final; requirement that trustee sign hold harmless agreement not injunction); Settembre v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 30288 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court reversed decision denying discharge for failure to maintain books and records remanded for evidentiary hearing; not final); In re American Capital Equipment, 50 BCD P 191 (3d Cir. 2008) (relaxed view; denial of motion to dismiss is final).
©2009 Jonathan M. Landers
