  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
estate, to whom it would not give notice." Finally, the court addressed the debtor's argument that the plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed as equitably moot. The court concluded that, given the lack of substantial evidence regarding the events that had taken place after confirmation, the issue of equitable mootness would be more appropriately addressed on a summary judgment motion. The court granted the debtor's motion to dismiss on the first two grounds asserted.
i. In the Matter of MPF Holdings, 701 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2012)
Holding: A reorganization plan must contain a "specific and unequivocal" reservation in order for the debtor to have standing to pursue a claim post-bankruptcy. However, the specific and unequivocal standard does not require the plan to individually name defendants or state that they will as opposed to may be sued.
ii. In re Saipan Air, Inc., 505 B.R. 305 (D. N. Mariana Isl., 2014).
Issue: Whether doctrine of res judiciata precludes action by airline's former employees, officers and advisers, claiming fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, based on defendants' alleged fraudulent inducement of airline to transfer money and other assets to debtor airline two months before filing for bankruptcy protection.
Holding: Under Arizona law, former employees, officers, and advisers of Chapter 11 debtor were not "released parties," within meaning of reorganization plan, enjoining creditors from continuing to pursue against "any of released the parties" any action related to claim against debtor, thus foreclosing application of res judicata to bar creditor's claims against employees, officers, and advisers for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), based on their alleged fraudulent inducement of creditor to transfer assets to debtor two months before filing for bankruptcy, since plan and confirming order failed to identify released parties, releasing parties, and released claims with any specificity. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq.
i. In re BP RE, L.P.,735 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2013)
Issue: Chapter 11 debtor, which owned land and buildings where two automobile dealerships were located, filed adversary complaint, alleging various state-law tort and contract claims relating to its negotiations with prospective purchaser over sale and lease of one of the dealerships and related property. Chapter 11 debtor consented to the bankruptcy court's entry of
©2014 William L. Norton III
