UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
|
|
- Abner Jennings
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: ) ) Bankruptcy Case MOVIE GALLERY, INC., et al., ) No DOT ) Chapter 11 Debtors. ) Jointly Administered OBJECTION OF BOARDS VIDEO COMPANY, LLC TO MOTION OF THE DEBTORS FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE DEBTORS TO REJECT A LICENSE AGREEMENT AND A PRODUCT AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH BOARDS, INC. AND REQUIRING BOARDS, INC. TO CEASE USING LICENSED MARKS BOARDS VIDEO COMPANY, LLC ( Boards ) by counsel WILEY REIN LLP, H. Jason Gold, Valerie P. Morrison, and Dylan G. Trache files this objection (the Objection ) to Motion ( Rejection Motion ) of the Debtors for an Order authorizing the Debtors to reject a License Agreement and a Product and Support Agreement with Boards, Inc. and requiring Boards, Inc. to cease using certain licensed marks, respectfully stating to the Court as follows: I. Summary of Argument. The Boards Contracts (hereinafter defined) generate substantial revenues and are very profitable to the Debtors bankruptcy estates. Pursuant to the Boards Contracts, Boards owns and operates a profitable business enterprise comprised of 20 retail video stores which employs approximately 400 people and generates annual revenue of approximately $30 million. If the Rejection Motion is granted, Boards business will very likely be destroyed and its employees will lose their jobs. The Boards Contracts themselves are profit centers for the Debtors estates. The only potentially burdensome provision is a Put Option (hereinafter defined) which requires the H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No Valerie P. Morrison, Va. Bar No Dylan G. Trache, Va. Bar No WILEY REIN LLP 7925 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 6200 McLean, Virginia (703) Counsel to Boards Video Company, LLC
2 Debtors to purchase the Boards stores and was the subject of a (now stayed) pre-petition arbitration proceeding. Boards understands the Debtors assertion that it is downsizing and therefore not in a position to acquire Boards stores. Accordingly, Boards is willing to waive the Put Option, dismiss the arbitration proceeding and forego the sale in the event the Boards Contracts are assumed. In order to succeed in its Rejection Motion, the Debtors must establish that rejection is an exercise of the Debtors sound business judgment. That burden cannot be met here. In the instant case, the estates will continue to derive substantial economic benefit from the Boards Contracts if they are assumed, and will suffer loss of a substantial revenue stream if they are rejected. These simple economic facts suggest an ulterior motive and lack of sound business judgment on the Debtors part, precisely the type of whim or caprice the Bankruptcy Code will not countenance as grounds for rejection of an executory contract. In addition, in enacting 365(n), Congress has directed bankruptcy courts to develop equitable treatment in handling the rejection of trademark licenses. See S. Rep , 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3200, Clearly, it would not be equitable treatment to allow the Debtors to reject the profitable Boards Contracts without a sound business justification where the result will be the loss of so many livelihoods. Boards is entitled to take discovery concerning the issues presented above and requests a meaningful opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the hearing on the Rejection Motion should be postponed to permit such discovery to occur. Finally, the Debtors are not permitted to seek injunctive relief in a contested matter proceeding, and must refile their motion as an adversary proceeding if they wish to pursue such relief. 2
3 II. Background. 1. On January 25, 2001, Hollywood Entertainment Corporation ( Hollywood ), Hollywood Management Company ( HMC ) and Boards, Inc. entered into a License Agreement ( License Agreement ) pursuant to which Hollywood granted Boards, Inc. a non-exclusive license to use certain names, trademarks, characters, symbols, designs, likenesses and trade dress (collectively, Hollywood Marks ). On January 1, 2003, Boards, Inc. assigned the License Agreement to Boards with the consent of Hollywood. The License Agreement requires Boards to pay quarterly royalties of two percent (2%) to Hollywood. 2. In accordance with the License Agreement, Hollywood and Boards, Inc. entered into a Product and Support Agreement ( PSA and collectively, with the License Agreement, the Boards Contracts ) through which Hollywood supplies to Boards movies, games, accessories, concessions and other products and supplies customarily provided by Hollywood to its stores. Hollywood also provides certain operational support to Boards, as described in the PSA. Boards pays Hollywood certain product, distribution and warehouse fees in return for the services provided by Hollywood under the PSA. Boards, Inc. also assigned the PSA to Boards with the consent of Hollywood on or about January 1, Boards rents and sells digital video disks (DVDs), videocassettes, video games and other merchandise at 20 retail stores in seven states located west of Utah ( Boards Stores ). Pursuant to the License Agreement and the PSA, each of the Boards Stores is operated as a Hollywood Video store. 4. Boards has approximately 400 employees. 3
4 5. Boards has paid Hollywood over $900,000 per year in royalties under the License Agreement and distribution fees under the PSA in each of the last 3 years. The estimated fees for 2007 will total approximately $1,050, In 2005, Hollywood underwent a change in control as defined in the License Agreement. Pursuant to the License Agreement, upon a change in control, Boards was entitled to require Hollywood, HMC, or their successor to purchase the Boards Stores pursuant to a valuation procedure set forth in the License Agreement (the Put Option ). 7. Following Hollywood s change in control, Boards exercised the Put Option. When the parties were unable to agree upon a sale price for the Boards Stores, in accordance with the License Agreement, Boards made a demand for arbitration ( Put Option Arbitration ) in March Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362, the Put Option Arbitration is currently stayed. 8. On October 16, 2007, Hollywood and its related debtors (collectively, the Debtors ) each filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in this Court. 9. On November 28, 2007, the Debtors filed the Rejection Motion seeking to (i) reject the License Agreement; (ii) reject the PSA; and (iii) enjoin Boards from taking certain actions. A hearing on the Rejection Motion is currently scheduled for December 18, III. Argument. A. The Debtors Should Not Be Authorized to Reject the Boards Contracts. 1. Standard for Rejection of Executory Contracts. In this circuit, the business judgment rule governs a debtor s decision to assume or reject an executory contract or unexpired lease under 11 U.S.C See Lubrizol Enter., Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043, (4 th Cir. 1985) ( the bankrupt s 4
5 decision [to reject] is to be accorded the deference mandated by the sound business judgment rule as generally applied by courts to discretionary actions or decisions of corporate directors ). To determine whether a contract may be rejected under 365 a court s proper inquiry is first to determine whether the contract is executory and if so, whether its rejection would be advantageous to the estate. In re Lawson, 14 F.3d 595, 1993 WL at *3 (4 th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). 1 While this review of the debtor s proposal is highly deferential to debtor s wishes, the Court must also consider all of the circumstances surrounding any particular lease assumption or rejection. 2 In re Trak Auto Corp., No DHA, 2002 WL at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2002). 3 The Court should evaluate the debtor s business judgment by considering the impact of the debtor s decision on a variety of parties as well as the impact on the debtor s estate; i.e. a judicial review of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the debtor s proposal relative to a particular lease. Id. In Trak Auto, Judge Adams adopted a four factor test for evaluating a debtor s business judgment with respect to the assumption or rejection of a contract or lease. These factors are: (1) the effect of the debtor s proposed assumption or rejection upon the debtor s estate; (2) how the lessor [or contract counter-party] is impacted by the assumption or rejection of its lease [or contract]; (3) whether any benefit or harm to the unsecured creditors arises from the assumption or rejection of [the subject lease or contract]; and (4) the significance of the lease [or contract] to debtor s overall reorganization efforts. Id. at *3. Other courts have considered similar factors in determining whether a debtor s decision to assume or reject a contract or lease satisfies the business judgment, including: (i) whether the contract burdens the estate financially; (ii) 1 A copy of this opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Unpublished opinions of the Fourth Circuit are not binding but may provide helpful guidance to courts. In re Serra Builders, Inc., 970 F.2d 1309, 1311 (4 th Cir. 1992). 2 The standards for rejection of a lease as opposed to a contract are the same. 3 A copy of this opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5
6 whether rejection would result in a large claim against the estate; (iii) whether the debtor showed real economic benefit resulting from the rejection; and (iv) whether upon balancing the equities, rejection will do more harm to the other party to the contract than to the debtor if not rejected. In re G Survivor Corp., 171 B.R. 755, 758 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994) (and cases cited therein). 2. The Debtors Have Not Established Sound Business Judgment in Their Decision to Reject the License Agreement and the PSA. The Debtors advance essentially four arguments in favor of rejection: (i) that the Boards Contracts are burdensome and do not represent sources of potential value for the Debtors future operations and creditors ; (ii) that the Boards Contracts were not arm s-length transactions and are unduly burdensome ; (iii) that the Debtors are not interested in acquiring the Boards Stores and seek to eliminate the time and resources that they do not want to spend in the Put Option Arbitration; and (iv) that Boards continued operation of the Boards Stores may diminish the integrity of the Hollywood Marks. Rejection Motion at None of these arguments is supported by the evidence, nor do they satisfy any of the factors set forth in Trak Auto. 4 a. The Boards Contracts are Valuable to the Debtors Estates. Over the past three years, Boards has paid almost $600,000 per year to Hollywood in royalties as required by the License Agreement. In addition, during such time period, Boards has paid an average of approximately $385,000 annually to Hollywood for its product distribution services. Virtually all of Hollywood s costs associated with Boards contracts are passed through directly to Boards. Significantly, Hollywood does not provide services such as training, oversight and field services, and does not maintain on its payroll employees whose sole 4 As explained below, at the very least, Boards is entitled to discovery to challenge these bald assertions. 6
7 function is to administer the Boards Contracts. Accordingly, the operation of the Boards Stores results in a substantial profit for the Debtors at minimal cost. The Debtors have not explained how this profitable enterprise burdens the estates. Moreover, the unsecured creditors of the estates would suffer if rejection is allowed, not only by foregoing the profits associated with these contracts, but because Boards would have a substantial rejection claim (estimated in excess of $30 million) should the Boards Contracts be rejected. Therefore, far from being a burden on the estates, the Boards Contracts in fact provide substantial value to the estates. b. The License Agreement and PSA are Arm s-length Transactions. The Debtors argument that the contracts are not the result of historical arms-length negotiations is a red herring. Boards, Inc. was created and the Boards Contracts were entered into specifically to prevent the complete loss of new store locations that Hollywood was not able to acquire for itself at the time due to financial constraints. Since their inception, the Boards Contracts have not only been a profit center for Hollywood, but they allowed Hollywood (without spending a cent) to carry its name and brand into markets and locations that otherwise would have been lost had the parties not entered into the Boards Contracts, and to eliminate lease liability exposure for the stores Hollywood was not permitted to open. In April, 2005, Movie Gallery, Inc. acquired Hollywood and HMC with full knowledge of the history, benefits and burdens of the Boards Contracts. In short, the Boards Contracts are either beneficial to the estate or they are not. To argue (as the Debtors really do) that they would be even more profitable if they were renegotiated misses the point. c. Boards Will Waive the Put Option if the Boards Contracts are Assumed. The Debtors have asserted that they do not desire to purchase the Boards Stores. The Put Option Arbitration is now stayed and will continue to be stayed until confirmation of a plan, 7
8 unless Boards seeks and is granted relief from the automatic stay. Accordingly, during the pendency of these bankruptcy cases, the Debtors will not have to spend any time or resources devoted to the Put Option Arbitration. More importantly, Boards is willing to waive the Put Option in the event the Debtors ultimately assume the Boards Contracts. 5 Accordingly, the Put Option does not present a burden to the estate and is not a factor that supports rejection of the Boards Contracts. d. Boards Has Not and Will Not Tarnish the Hollywood Marks. Maintaining the value of the Hollywood Marks is as essential to Boards business as it is to the Debtors business. Boards operates profitable, competitive, well-run video retail stores in reliance upon and in accordance with the license. The Debtors have presented absolutely no evidence that Boards has somehow misused or tarnished the Hollywood Marks. Moreover, the Debtors have presented no evidence that they have historically incurred or will incur any expense in the future to ensure that the operation of those stores does not tarnish the integrity of the Licensed Marks. Rejection Motion at 18. Accordingly, the Debtors argument that Boards may tarnish the Hollywood Marks is pure speculation and should be disregarded. e. The Court Should Question Whether the Proposed Rejection is in Good Faith. The Debtors apparently desire to transfer control of their operations to Sopris Capital Advisors, LLC ( Sopris ). See Movie Gallery, Inc., et al. Proposed Restructuring Term Sheet; Rejection Motion of the Debtors for an Order (A) Authorizing the Debtors to Perform Under Restructuring Agreements, (B) Authorizing the Debtors to Pay Certain Associated Fees to and Reimbursement of Certain Expenses of the Backstop Party and (C) Granting Related Relief. It is 5 Boards is not willing to immediately waive the Put Option because in the event the Debtors are successful in rejecting the Boards Contracts, the presence of the Put Option will very substantially increase Boards rejection claim. 8
9 known in this case, that Boards President, Mark Wattles, the founder and former chief executive officer of Hollywood prior to its sale to the current owners, is a potential investor in connection with a possible competing reorganization plan. Given the timing of the Rejection Motion, and the profitability of the Boards Contracts, it appears that the motive for the filing of the Rejection Motion may be to disincentivize competitive bidding or as retribution, rather than a sober and sound exercise of Debtors (as opposed to someone else s) business judgment. 3. Equity Weighs Against Rejection of the Boards Contracts. In response to the Fourth Circuit s decision in Lubrizol, Congress enacted 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides certain protections to holders of intellectual property licenses. While Congress excluded the holder of trademark licenses from these protections, Congress explained this decision as follows: Finally, the bill does not address the rejection of executory trademark, trade name or service mark licenses by debtor-licensors. While such rejection is of concern because of the interpretation of section 365 by the Lubrizol court and such others, see, e.g., In re Chipwich, Inc., 54 Bankr. Rep. 427 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985), such contracts raise issues beyond the scope of this legislation. In particular, trademark, trade name and service mark licensing relationships depend to a large extent on control of the quality of the products or services sold by the licensee. Since these matters could not be addressed without a more extensive study, it was determined to postpone congressional action in this area and to allow the development of equitable treatment of this situation by bankruptcy courts. S. Rep , 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N (emphasis added). Courts have the equitable discretion to deny rejection under circumstances such as these, where the rejection of the License Agreement and PSA produces no substantial benefit to the estates, but could effectively destroy a profitable business and cause the loss of almost 400 jobs. Specifically, rejection would cause Boards to (i) lose the goodwill associated with the Hollywood Marks; (ii) incur substantial re-branding expenses should Boards attempt to continue in business; (iii) require Boards to enter into individual agreements with major movie studios in 9
10 order to acquire product; and (iv) purchase new information technology and computer systems. The combination of these expenses will most likely make it impossible for Boards to remain in business. In the event of a failure of Boards business, Boards will face lease exposure of in excess of $19 million. 6 In In re Matusalem, the court refused to allow rejection of a franchise agreement, including a license to use trademarks and trade names where there was no economic benefit to the debtor in doing so, and where the proposed rejection would utterly destroy the business of [the licensee] and with it the livelihood of [the licensee s] principals and employees. In re Matusalem, 158 B.R. 514, 522 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1993). Here, like in Matusalem, rejection would likely result in the destruction of Boards business without any demonstrable benefit to the estates. Other courts have also refused to allow rejection where the harm to the counter-party to a contract is disproportionate to any benefit to the estate. For example, in In re The Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co., the debtor was not permitted to reject an exclusive distribution agreement after application of the business judgment test. In re The Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co., 114 B.R. 134, 137 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1990). In Monarch, as in this case, the contract party was established for the express purpose of operating under its agreements with the debtor. Similarly, in In re Midwest Polychem, Ltd., the court noted that [e]ven in the application of the so-called business judgment test courts have recognized that the relative equities must come into play and accordingly denied approval of a proposed rejection where the sole purpose of the rejection was to eliminate a non-compete agreement that would substantially damage the counter-party to the contract. In re Midwest Polychem, Ltd., 61 B.R. 559, (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986). The 6 Many of the leases are personally guaranteed by Boards principal, who personally faces approximately $12.5 million in lease guaranty exposure. 10
11 damage to Boards that would occur upon rejection, combined with the fact that the contracts are profitable for the Debtors, and the fact that rejection would harm the unsecured creditors by allowing a large rejection claim constitute more than sufficient grounds for denying rejection in this case. B. Boards is Entitled to Discovery Regarding the Debtors Alleged Good Business Judgment. The filing of this Objection will commence a contested matter under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure The hearing on the Rejection Motion is currently scheduled for December 18, Boards only recently engaged counsel with respect to the Rejection Motion. As explained above, the Debtors decision to reject the Boards Contracts raises serious issues regarding their business judgment. Boards requires discovery on issues core to the central question of the Debtors business judgment. Allowing discovery to proceed will not prejudice the Debtors in any way. To the contrary, if rejection is delayed, the Debtors will continue to be entitled to royalty and other payments under the Boards Contracts until such time as a rejection occurs. C. The Debtors Request for Injunctive Relief Requires an Adversary Proceeding. The Debtors request that Boards be required to cease use of the [Hollywood] Marks immediately upon the effectiveness of the rejection of the Boards Contracts. Rejection Motion at 13. The Rejection Motion is devoid of any support for this request for injunctive relief. Moreover, such relief must be requested by adversary proceeding rather than Rejection Motion. See In re Best Prod. Co., 203 B.R. 51, 54 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1996) ( Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(7) plainly requires that any request for an injunction or other equitable relief must be sought in the context of an adversary proceeding ). The Debtors should be required to re-file any request for equitable or injunctive relief as an adversary proceeding. 11
12 WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Boards Video Company, LLC respectfully requests entry of an Order by the Court: (i) sustaining the Objection; (ii) denying the Rejection Motion or alternatively, continuing the hearing and establishing a discovery schedule; (iii) requiring the Debtors to re-file any request for equitable or injunctive relief as an adversary proceeding; and (iv) granting such other and further relief as is just and proper. WILEY REIN LLP 7925 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 6200 McLean, Virginia Respectfully submitted, BOARDS VIDEO COMPANY, LLC By Counsel By: /s/ Dylan G. Trache H. Jason Gold, Va. Bar No Valerie P. Morrison, Va. Bar No Dylan G. Trache, Va. Bar No Counsel to Boards Video Company, LLC 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Greenbelt Division)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Greenbelt Division In re: USGen New England, Inc., Case No. 03-30465 (PM Debtor. Chapter 11 MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO REJECT POWER PURCHASE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION In re: MOVIE GALLERY, INC., et.al. 1 Debtor. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-30696-DOT Chapter 11 Jointly Administered
More informationCase KG Doc 396 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11 : : : :
Case 18-11736-KG Doc 396 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ----------------------------------------------------------x In re HERITAGE HOME GROUP
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Harvey R. Miller Stephen Karotkin Joseph H. Smolinsky WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Attorneys for Debtors and
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
John D. Fiero (CA Bar No. ) Kenneth H. Brown (CA Bar No. 00) Miriam Khatiblou (CA Bar No. ) Teddy M. Kapur (CA Bar No. ) 0 California Street, th Floor San Francisco, California -00 Telephone: /-000 Facsimile:
More informationCase GLT Doc 577 Filed 06/23/17 Entered 06/23/17 14:22:20 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8
Document Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: Case No. 17-22045 (GLT rue21, inc., et al., 1 Chapter 11 Debtors. (Jointly Administered Hearing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Jennifer C. DeMarco (JD-9284) Sara M. Tapinekis (ST-4382) CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-8000 Facsimile: (212) 878-8375 Joseph J. Wielebinski State
More informationCase hdh11 Doc 223 Filed 12/26/17 Entered 12/26/17 15:19:42 Page 1 of 163
Case 17-33964-hdh11 Doc 223 Filed 12/26/17 Entered 12/26/17 15:19:42 Page 1 of 163 Gregory G. Hesse (Texas Bar No. 09549419) HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75209 Telephone:
More informationCase KLP Doc 1555 Filed 01/22/18 Entered 01/22/18 11:58:29 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9
Document Page 1 of 9 Kenneth H. Eckstein (admitted pro hac vice Adam C. Rogoff (admitted pro hac vice Stephen D. Zide (admitted pro hac vice Rachael L. Ringer (admitted pro hac vice KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
More informationCase: SDB Doc#:26 Filed:02/28/18 Entered:02/28/18 16:24:33 Page:1 of 7
Case:18-10274-SDB Doc#:26 Filed:02/28/18 Entered:02/28/18 16:24:33 Page:1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 FIBRANT, LLC,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ------------------------------------------------------------------- x : Chapter 11 In re: : : Case No. 12-13998 (MFW) THQ, INC., et al.,
More informationCase ast Doc 673 Filed 01/22/18 Entered 01/22/18 17:46:18
Case 8-14-70593-ast Doc 673 Filed 01/22/18 Entered 01/22/18 17:46:18 GARFUNKEL WILD, P.C. 111 Great Neck Road Great Neck, New York 11021 Telephone: (516) 393-2200 Fax: (516) 466-5964 Burton S. Weston Adam
More informationCase: SDB Doc#:13 Filed:02/23/18 Entered:02/23/18 20:43:28 Page:1 of 7
Case:18-10274-SDB Doc#:13 Filed:02/23/18 Entered:02/23/18 20:43:28 Page:1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 FIBRANT, LLC,
More informationCase Document 671 Filed in TXSB on 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 17-36709 Document 671 Filed in TXSB on 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: Chapter 11 COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, CASE NO. 17-36709
More informationCase KRH Doc 676 Filed 11/25/15 Entered 11/25/15 14:41:58 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 23
Document Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION In re: HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, INC., et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 15-32919 (KRH)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: : Chapter 11 : A123 SYSTEMS, INC., et al., : Case No. 12-12859 (KJC) : Debtors. 1 : Hearing Date: 11/8/12 at 10:00 a.m. : Objection
More informationsmb Doc 333 Filed 02/05/19 Entered 02/05/19 13:45:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 18
Pg 1 of 18 Andrew G. Dietderich Brian D. Glueckstein Alexa J. Kranzley SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 Counsel to Lombard
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: SMALL LOANS, INC., et al 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No.: 11-12254 (WRS APPLICATION OF THE DEBTORS FOR ENTRY OF
More informationCase 8:14-bk CPM Doc 101 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 28
Case 8:14-bk-07040-CPM Doc 101 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION www.flmb.uscourts.gov In re: HOPEWELL BUSINESS CENTER, LLC HOPEWELL ENTERPRISES,
More informationCase ref Doc 1313 Filed 07/02/14 Entered 07/02/14 14:48:50 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6
Case 13-14508-ref Doc 1313 Filed 07/02/14 Entered 07/02/14 14:48:50 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: KidsPeace Corporation,
More informationCase KJC Doc 1002 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 16-11452-KJC Doc 1002 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re DRAW ANOTHER CIRCLE, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No.: 16-11452
More informationCase Doc 506 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION
Case 18-80856 Doc 506 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 11 ) Advanced Sports Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
More informationCase BLS Doc 97 Filed 08/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 18-11780-BLS Doc 97 Filed 08/08/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: BROOKSTONE HOLDINGS CORP., et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 18-11780
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
1 1 1 1 STEVEN H. FELDERSTEIN, State Bar No. 0 THOMAS A. WILLOUGHBY, State Bar No. 1 FELDERSTEIN FITZGERALD WILLOUGHBY & PASCUZZI LLP 00 Capitol Mall, Suite Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile:
More informationCase reg Doc 1076 Filed 04/27/18 Entered 04/27/18 15:10:04
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10 th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 Facsimile: (917) 261-5864 Shawn P. Naunton Attorneys for Ira Machowsky KRAUSS PLLC 41 Madison Avenue,
More informationFINAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION AND FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF THE OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS COMMITTEE OF WARNACO GROUP, INC. ET AL.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X : Chapter 11 In Re: : Warnaco Group, Inc. et al., : Case Nos. 01-41643
More informationSelective Payment of Prepetition Claims in Chapter 11 Before Distributions to Creditors Generally
Selective Payment of Prepetition Claims in Chapter 11 Before Distributions to Creditors Generally 33 rd Annual Southeastern Bankruptcy Law Institute Atlanta, Georgia April 12-14, 2007 David Neier Winston
More informationCase wlh Doc 564 Filed 02/25/16 Entered 02/25/16 15:52:05 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8
Document Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IN RE: CLAYTON GENERAL, INC., f/k/a Southern Regional Health System, Inc., d/b/a Southern
More informationmg Doc 5285 Filed 10/04/13 Entered 10/04/13 16:34:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 7
Pg 1 of 7 STORCH AMINI & MUNVES PC 2 Grand Central Tower, 25 th Floor 140 East 45 th Street New York, New York 10017 Tel. (212 490-4100 Noam M. Besdin, Esq. nbesdin@samlegal.com Counsel for Simona Robinson
More informationGifting & The Absolute Priority Rule. Brianna Walsh, J.D. Candidate 2016
Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule 2015 Volume VII No. 29 Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule Brianna Walsh, J.D. Candidate 2016 Cite as: Gifting & The Absolute Priority Rule, 7 ST. JOHN S BANKR. RESEARCH
More informationCase KG Doc 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 18-50687-KG Doc 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: SUNIVA, INC., Chapter 11 Case No. 17-10837 (KG) Debtor. SQN ASSET SERVICING,
More informationCase BLS Doc 427 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 18-11120-BLS Doc 427 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re Chapter 11 VIDEOLOGY, INC., et al. 1 Case No. 18-11120 (BLS) Debtors. Jointly
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Southern District of Georgia
Case:18-10274-SDB Doc#:397 Filed:10/02/18 Entered:10/02/18 16:02:51 Page:1 of 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Southern District of Georgia In the matter of: Chapter 11 Fibrant, LLC, et al 1 Case No. 18-10274-SDB
More informationNo Surcharge for You: Third Circuit Rules That Section 506(c) Surcharge Is "Sharply Limited" January/February Lauren M. Buonome Mark G.
No Surcharge for You: Third Circuit Rules That Section 506(c) Surcharge Is "Sharply Limited" January/February 2014 Lauren M. Buonome Mark G. Douglas The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS EASTERN DIVISION ) In re ) ) Chapter 11 SW BOSTON HOTEL VENTURE LLC, et al., 1 ) Case No. 10-14535 (JNF) ) Debtors. ) Jointly
More informationCase Document 555 Filed in TXSB on 10/10/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 18-33836 Document 555 Filed in TXSB on 10/10/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: NEIGHBORS LEGACY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Debtors. 1 Chapter
More informationCase hdh11 Doc 10 Filed 09/02/16 Entered 09/02/16 07:53:12 Page 1 of 13
Case 16-33437-hdh11 Doc 10 Filed 09/02/16 Entered 09/02/16 07:53:12 Page 1 of 13 Robert D. Albergotti State Bar No. 009790800 Ian T. Peck State Bar No. 24013306 Jarom J. Yates State Bar No. 24071134 HAYNES
More informationIn re Luedtke, Case No svk (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 7/31/2008) (Bankr. E.D. Wis., 2008)
Page 1 In re: Dawn L. Luedtke, Chapter 13, Debtor. Case No. 02-35082-svk. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin. July 31, 2008. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER SUSAN KELLEY, Bankruptcy Judge. Dawn
More informationCase Document 115 Filed in TXSB on 08/08/11 Page 1 of 7
Case 11-35926 Document 115 Filed in TXSB on 08/08/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: BAYTOWN NAVIGATION INC., et al., 1 DEBTORS.
More informationCase Document 86 Filed in TXSB on 03/10/15 Page 1 of 5
Case 15-31086 Document 86 Filed in TXSB on 03/10/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: UNIVERSITY GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
More informationCase Document 814 Filed in TXSB on 08/09/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 16-34028 Document 814 Filed in TXSB on 08/09/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: NORTHSTAR OFFSHORE GROUP, LLC, DEBTOR.
More informationCase PJW Doc 762 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 13-10061-PJW Doc 762 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ------------------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 : Penson
More informationrk Doc 14 FILED 08/07/17 ENTERED 08/07/17 10:27:14 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION, CANTON ----------------------------------------------------------x In re Case No. 17-61735 SCI DIRECT, LLC Chapter 11 Debtor and
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION IN RE: STUDIO FRAMES LTD., d/b/a Somerhill Gallery, Debtor. Case No. 10-80827 Chapter 11 LANDLORD'S MOTION FOR ORDER
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention GARNIK MNATSAKANYAN FAMILY INTER-VIVOS TRUST
-- {.00-0.DOC-(} Case :0-cv-00-DDP-JEM Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 RUTTER HOBBS & DAVIDOFF INCORPORATED WESLEY D. HURST (State Bar No. RISA J. MORRIS (State Bar No. 0 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 00 Los
More informationChapter VI. Credit Bidding s Impact on Professional Fees
Chapter VI Credit Bidding s Impact on Professional Fees American Bankruptcy Institute A. Should the Amount of the Credit Bid Be Included as Consideration Upon Which a Professional s Fee Is Calculated?
More informationCase BLS Doc 131 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 18-11092-BLS Doc 131 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: RMH FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 18-11092
More informationCase Document 1492 Filed in TXSB on 01/18/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 10-60149 Document 1492 Filed in TXSB on 01/18/12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION IN RE: LACK S STORES, INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
More informationmew Doc 2896 Filed 03/20/18 Entered 03/20/18 15:26:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 9
Pg 1 of 9 Amish R. Doshi, Esq. Hearing Date: March 27, 2018 Magnozzi & Kye, LLP Hearing Time: 11:00 AM 23 Green Street, Suite 302 Plan Objection Date: March 15, 2018 Huntington, New York 11743 Contract
More informationCase GLT Doc 1070 Filed 09/06/17 Entered 09/06/17 16:16:10 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10
Document Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: Case No. 17-22045 (GLT rue21, inc., et al., 1 Chapter 11 Debtors. (Jointly Administered rue21,
More informationCase 1:09-bk Doc 502 Filed 02/03/10 Entered 02/03/10 19:53:12 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 16
Document Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND In re: Chapter 11 UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER, et al., 1 Case No. 09-12418 (ANV Debtors. Jointly Administered
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-1719 IN RE: ABC-NACO, INC., and Debtor-Appellee, OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF ABC-NACO, INC., APPEAL OF: Appellee. SOFTMART,
More informationCase KG Doc 345 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11. Debtors.
Case 15-11874-KG Doc 345 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re Chapter 11 Haggen Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-11874 (KG) Debtors. Hearing
More informationCase MFW Doc 1321 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 16-10527-MFW Doc 1321 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: SPORTS AUTHORITY HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 16-10527
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 7:15-cv-00096-ART Doc #: 56 Filed: 02/05/16 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 2240 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE In re BLACK DIAMOND MINING COMPANY,
More informationSigned January 17, 2019 United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 18-50214-rlj11 Doc 865 Filed 01/17/19 Entered 01/17/19 16:51:55 Page 1 of 7 The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Signed January 17, 2019
More informationCash Collateral Orders Revisited Following ResCap
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Cash Collateral Orders Revisited Following ResCap
More informationCase CSS Doc 147 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 14-11987-CSS Doc 147 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: FCC HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 14-11987 (CSS)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Appellant, Appellee,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ACORN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, v. Appellant, Case No. 09-cv-00996-JMR Judge James M. Rosenbaum UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Appellee, POLAROID CORPORATION,
More informationCase AJC Doc 229 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 7. CASE NO AJC DB ISLAMORADA, LLC, Chapter 11 DEBTOR S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE
Case 07-20537-AJC Doc 229 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 7 In re: UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA www.flsb.uscourts.gov CASE NO. 07-20537-AJC DB ISLAMORADA, LLC, Chapter 11 Debtor-in-Possession.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re ) Chapter 11 ) SP NEWSPRINT HOLDINGS LLC, et al., ) Case No. 11-13649 (CSS) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) Hearing Date: February
More informationCase AJC Doc 10 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 7. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division
Case 13-13954-AJC Doc 10 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division www.flsb.uscourts.gov In re: BANAH INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. Case No. 13-13954-AJC
More informationalg Doc 4468 Filed 07/29/13 Entered 07/29/13 16:17:20 Main Document Pg 1 of 17. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Hearing Date: August 5, 2013
Pg 1 of 17 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Hearing Date: August 5, 2013 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Hearing Time: 11:00 a.m. ------------------------------------------------------x : In re : Chapter 11
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: CYNERGY DATA, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 09- ( ) Jointly Administered DEBTORS MOTION FOR ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY
More informationCase lbr Doc 4 Entered 06/13/10 15:05:10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case -0-lbr Doc Entered 0// :0: Page of GORDON SILVER GREGORY E. GARMAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. E-mail: ggarman@gordonsilver.com MATTHEW C. ZIRZOW, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. E-mail: mzirzow@gordonsilver.com ERIC
More informationrdd Doc 1548 Filed 12/20/18 Entered 12/20/18 14:11:26 Main Document Pg 1 of 7
13-22840-rdd Doc 1548 Filed 12/20/18 Entered 12/20/18 14:11:26 Main Document Pg 1 of 7 GARFUNKEL WILD, P.C. 111 Great Neck Road Great Neck, New York 11021 Telephone: (516) 393-2200 Facsimile: (516) 466-5964
More informationDebtors. Airlines Corporation, et al., ( NWA Corp. ), and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries,
Robert A. Brodin R. A. BRODIN, LLC Labor Relations Consultant for the Reorganized Debtors 22 Summit Heights North Oaks, MN 55127 Telephone: (612) 726-7281 Facsimile: (612) 726-3947 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION In re: XINERGY LTD., et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 15-[ ] ( ) Debtors. 1 (Joint Administration
More informationCase cjf Doc 35 Filed 03/30/18 Entered 03/30/18 13:46:32 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11
Document Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN In re: Case No.: 17-14180-13 VICTORIA SUE FISHEL, Debtor. MEMORANDUM DECISION Victoria Sue Fishel ( Debtor ) is a consumer
More informationCase Doc 103 Filed 01/20/14 Entered 01/20/14 15:33:26 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7
Document Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION In re: COLOR STAR GROWERS OF COLORADO, INC., VAST, INC., and COLOR STAR, LLC, Debtors. Chapter
More informationCase KG Doc 327 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 18-10834-KG Doc 327 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 VER TECHNOLOGIES HOLDCO LLC, et al., 1 Case No. 18-10834 (KG Debtors.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION
Richard M. Cieri (NY 4207122) Michael A. Condyles (VA 27807) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Peter J. Barrett (VA 46179) Citigroup Center KUTAK ROCK LLP 153 East 53rd Street Bank of America Center New York, New York
More informationCase Doc 6 Filed 06/18/14 Entered 06/18/14 21:04:55 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7
Document Page 1 of 7 LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP Kenneth A. Rosen, Esq. Steven M. Skolnick, Esq. S. Jason Teele, Esq. Nicole Stefanelli, Esq. Shirley Dai, Esq. Anthony De Leo, Esq. 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland,
More informationCase MFW Doc 7 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE : :
Case 15-11761-MFW Doc 7 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE --------------------------------------------------------------- x In re SANTA FE GOLD
More informationChapter 11. I, Michael Creber, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP Robert J. Feinstein, Esq. Gabrielle A. Rohwer, Esq. 780 Third Avenue, 36 th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212.561.7700 Facsimile: 212.561.7777 Counsel for Grant
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Debtor. Case No Chapter 13 Hon. Marci B.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re Cleopatra Jones, / Debtor. Case No. 03-62325 Chapter 13 Hon. Marci B. McIvor OPINION DENYING CONFIRMATION OF CHAPTER
More informationCase KRH Doc 1049 Filed 12/07/15 Entered 12/07/15 21:29:47 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 29
Document Page 1 of 29 JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 David G. Heiman (admitted pro hac vice) Carl E. Black (admitted
More informationCase Doc 36 Filed 12/16/14 Entered 12/16/14 16:15:00 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 21
Document Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re: GOPICNIC BRANDS, INC., Debtor. Chapter 11 Hon. Jacqueline P. Cox Case No. 14-43382
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Main Document Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 MISSION COAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., 1 Case No. 18-04177-TOM11 Debtors.
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 14 IT IS ORDERED as set forth below: Date: June 26, 2015 W. Homer Drake U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION IN THE
More informationsmb Doc 548 Filed 03/25/19 Entered 03/25/19 14:09:42 Main Document Pg 1 of 24
Pg 1 of 24 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Gary T. Holtzer Robert J. Lemons Kelly DiBlasi Attorneys for Debtors
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. x : : : : : : : : x
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., Debtors. x x Chapter 11 Case No. 05- ( ) Jointly Administered Hearing Date Objection Due MOTION
More informationCase PJW Doc 761 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 14-10282-PJW Doc 761 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) AFTER-PARTY2, INC. (f/k/a Event Rentals, ) Case No.: 14-10282
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Main Document Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: * CHAPTER 11 GPI AVIATION, INC. * Debtor * * GPI AVIATION, INC. * CASE NO. 1-05-bk-06047MDF
More informationCase KJC Doc 835 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.
Case 16-11452-KJC Doc 835 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re DRAW ANOTHER CIRCLE, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No.: 16-11452
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case 09-11191-PGH Doc 428 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION IN RE: MERCEDES HOMES, INC., et. al., Debtors.
More informationCase CSS Doc 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 17-12906-CSS Doc 19 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) CHARMING CHARLIE HOLDINGS INC., et al., 1 ) ) Debtors. ) ) Chapter 11 Case
More informationCase Document 1035 Filed in TXSB on 09/07/18 Page 1 of 12
Case 17-36709 Document 1035 Filed in TXSB on 09/07/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In re: COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INC., et
More informationCase Study: In Re Visteon Corp.
Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6 th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 reprints@portfoliomedia.com Case Study: In Re Visteon Corp. Law360, New York (August 12, 2010) --
More informationINDIVIDUAL CHAPTER 11: A HOW-TO
INDIVIDUAL CHAPTER 11: A HOW-TO Thomas Flynn and Steven Kinsella March 15, 2016 Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code ) has never been particularly well-suited to individual
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Document Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION In re: XINERGY LTD., et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 15-[ ] ( ) Debtors. 1 (Joint Administration
More informationDebtors. : (Jointly Administered)
Hearing Date: To be determined Objection Deadline: To be determined MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street, 18th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 Facsimile: (302)
More informationCase reb Document 39 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
Case 08-20355-reb Document 39 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 11 ) CORNERSTONE MINISTRIES ) Case No. 08-20355-reb
More informationCase CSS Doc 16 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 14-11987-CSS Doc 16 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: FCC Holdings, Inc., et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No. 14-11987 (CSS) (Joint
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY In re: DANIEL WILBUR BENNETT and CASE NO. 04-40564 SANDRA FAYE BENNETT, CHAPTER 13 JOHN W. JOHNSON and CASE NO. 04-40593 KATHY S. JOHNSON, CHAPTER
More informationCase KJC Doc 83 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. ) Related to Docket Nos.
Case 19-10303-KJC Doc 83 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) 1515-GEENERGY HOLDING CO. LLC, et al., 1 ) Case No. 19-10303
More informationUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel For the Eighth Circuit
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-6023 In re: Wilma M. Pennington-Thurman llllllllllllllllllllldebtor ------------------------------ Wilma M. Pennington-Thurman llllllllllllllllllllldebtor
More informationBankruptcy Court Holds that Detroit Is Eligible to File for Chapter 9 Protection
December 11, 2013 Bankruptcy Court Holds that Detroit Is Eligible to File for Chapter 9 Protection The birthplace of the American auto industry now holds another, less fortunate distinction, that of being
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: MARK RICHARD LIPPOLD, Debtor. 1 FOR PUBLICATION Chapter 7 Case No. 11-12300 (MG) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MOTION
Michael Fuller, Oregon Bar No. 09357 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON In re Sheilah Kathleen Sherman, Debtor. Case No. 11-38681-rld13 DEBTOR S MOTION FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT AND
More information