  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
the proposed modifications' effect on reorganization, as opposed to each modification's effect on reorganization. Courts also measure the need for modifications by comparing the debtor's labor costs to competitors within the industry. The court found the debtors costs were much greater than industry competitors. The court also found that the union's counterproposal was not fair and equitable and did not show the union's good faith in rejecting the debtors' modifications. After noting the equities clearly weighed in favor of the debtors, the court granted their motion to reject the CBA and modify their retiree benefits.
ii. In re Journal Register Company, 488 B.R. 835 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)
Issue: Whether the debtor could sell substantially all of its assets to a purchaser that would not assume the debtor's obligations under its collective bargaining agreements, when such agreements had a "successor clause" requiring the assumption of the debtor's obligations.
Holding: The court held that while as a general rule, a debtor cannot avoid a "successor clause" in its collective bargaining agreements by selling all of its assets outside the ordinary course, the particular circumstances of the present case warranted approval of the sale because the collective bargaining agreements would terminate by their terms prior to closing.
i. In re Rosebar, 505 B.R. 82 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2014).
Issue: Creditor moved for award of sanctions based on individual Chapter 11 debtor's failure to appear at scheduled Rule 2004 examination.
Holding: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule, was made applicable to discovery frustrated in any adversary proceeding or contested matter in bankruptcy case did not provide appropriate basis for imposing sanctions against individual Chapter 11 debtor's attorney for advising debtor not to appear for scheduled Rule 2004 examination, though bankruptcy court could look to the Rule for appropriate guidance in deciding whether to impose sanctions. In order to impose sanctions in exercise of its inherent powers or pursuant to its power to issue "necessary or appropriate" orders, court had to find that individual Chapter 11 debtor's attorney had acted in bad faith in advising him not to appear for scheduled Rule 2004 examination and that attorney disregarded the plain terms of order authorizing the Rule 2004 examination. The order required that any change in examination date had to be agreed to in writing. Court found that attorney's actions was conduct tantamount to bad faith and warranted award of sanctions against debtor's attorney.
ii. In re Carter, 500 B.R. 739 (Bankr. D. Md. 2013)
Issue: Creditor, joined by United States Trustee, filed motion to dismiss Chapter 11 case of
©2014 William L. Norton III
