Rudolph J Di Massa

May 18, 2007 | The Legal Intelligencer

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Fibreboard Corporation v. Celotex Corporation (In re Celotex Corporation), that a party that pays judgments on which it is jointly and severally liable with a debtor in bankruptcy cannot assert a subrogation claim under Section 509 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover the debtor's share of the judgments.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Christopher M. Winter

7 minute read

September 16, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

In a recent decision, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Cara E. Craig of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held, in In re Parry, that a judgment creditor willfully violated the automatic stay when it failed to ensure that the prepetition liens that it had on several of the debtor's bank accounts were dissolved.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr.and Sommer L. Ross

8 minute read

December 02, 2002 | New Jersey Law Journal

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr.

8 minute read

May 14, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

A troubled company seeking a respite in which to reorganize is no different from any other company in at least one respect - it requires a regular and predictable cash flow to enable it to continue its existing business and to plan for the future.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Kevin P. Ray

8 minute read

January 18, 2008 | Law.com

The automatic stay and the discharge are two cornerstones of consumer bankruptcy law. They are, respectively, a fundamental debtor protection and a fundamental debtor objective. The automatic stay benefits debtors by allowing them to be free from virtually all collection efforts during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. Further, the discharge affords debtors a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Michael D. Sousa

11 minute read

January 30, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

Both Delaware law and the bankruptcy code generally permit the assignment of contractual obligations and interests. However, in Northrop Grumman Technical Services Inc. v. The Shaw Group Inc. (In re IT Group Inc. Co.), when one of the four members of a limited liability company filed for bankruptcy and subsequently attempted to transfer its rights under an LLC operating agreement to one of the other LLC members, a dispute arose among the four LLC members.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr.and Wendy Simkulak

7 minute read

May 09, 2002 | The Legal Intelligencer

In situations where the granting of a deadline extension would be subject to Bankr. R. 9006(b)`s requirement of excusable neglect, can technical noncompliance be forgiven through the application of the substantial compliance doctrine? In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. W. Va., et. al. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus.), 285 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2002), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that it could, and granted certain claimants preferred status in the disposition of a settlement trust desp

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr.

8 minute read

June 24, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

In the case of In re Computer World Solution Inc., the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that loan payments by a debtor constituted avoidable preferential transfers.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Adrian C. Maholchic

11 minute read

March 11, 2004 | Law.com

Several months ago, in Capital Factors Inc. v. Kmart Corp., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed whether a bankruptcy court could authorize a debtor-in-possession to pay "critical vendors" for pre-petition debts. The issue in Capital Factors arose when the bankruptcy court issued an order allowing Kmart to pay the pre-petition claims of vendors deemed by Kmart to be critical vendors.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr.

9 minute read

September 15, 2006 | The Legal Intelligencer

Under Section 502(b)(2) of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, upon a party-in-interest's objection to a creditor's claim, a bankruptcy court must determine the amount of such claim . as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount except to the extent that . such claim is for unmatured interest.

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Matthew E. Hoffman

9 minute read