• Commonwealth v. Petrick

    Publication Date: 2019-10-07
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Criminal Law
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-1176

    Restitution orders could not be discharged in bankruptcy since they served criminal justice goals and were therefore exempt from discharge under the code. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • In re: Hackler

    Publication Date: 2019-09-23
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Justice Roth
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Elliott J. Almanza and Keith A. Bonchi (Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi & Gill)
    for defendant: Leonard C. Walczyk (Wasserman, Jurista & Stolz)

    Case Number: 18-1650

    Voidance of Preferential Transfer under Bankruptcy Code Required Despite Potentially Competing State Interests in Real Estate and Tax Collection

  • In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-03
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Bibas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: GianClaudio Finizio and Neil B. Glassman, Bayard P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jeremy C. Hollembeak, Michael S. Kim, Benjamin J. Sauter and Andrew D. Wang, Kobre & Kim, New York, NY for Delaware Trust Co. Ashley R. Altschuler and R. Craig Martin, DLA Piper, Wilmington, DE
    for defendant: Thomas J. Curtin, Ellen M. Halstead, Howard R. Hawkins, Jr., Michele Maman and Mark C. Ellenberg, Cadwalader Wicker-sham & Taft, New York, NY and Washington, DC; Scott B. Czerwonka, Wilks Lukoff & Bracegirdle, Wilmington, DE for Mor-gan Stanley Capital Group Inc. George A. Davis, Latham & Watkins, New York, NY; Michael D. DeBaecke, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; Peter M. Friedman, Jonathan Rosenberg and Daniel S. Shamah, O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC and New York, NY; Thomas R. Hooper and Mark D. Kotwick, Seward & Kissel, New York, NY; Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Stevens & Lee, Wilmington, DE for Wilmington Trust N.A. Mark E. Felger and Simon Fraser, Cozen O'Connor, Wilmington, DE; Hu-mayun Khalid, Thomas J. Moloney and Sean A. O'Neal, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, New York, NY for J. Aron & Co. Bradley R. Aronstam and Nicholas D. Mozal, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, Wilmington, DE , Adam B. Banks, Weil Gotshal & Manges, New York, NY for Titan Investment Holdings LP.

    Case Number: D68617

    Following approval of a bankruptcy plan and corporate restructuring, payments and distributions to creditors were no longer considered collateral or proceeds under the waterfall provision of an intercreditor agreement.

  • In re: SRC Liquidation LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-04-24
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Accounting
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Chagares
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68535

    Breach of fiduciary duty against company controllers dismissed with prejudice where complainant could not establish that managers acted in bad faith in pursuing and consummating merger that allegedly led to debtor's financial difficulties.

  • In re: Titus

    Publication Date: 2019-03-06
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas A. Campbell and Kathryn L. Harrison, Campbell & Levine, Pittsburgh, PA for appellant.
    for defendant: Neal H. Levin, Freeborn & Peters, Chicago, IL for appellee.

    Case Number: D68479

    Bankruptcy court did not err in utilizing non-necessities approach to determine fraudulent transfer liability involving an entireties account, but moving forward bankruptcy courts should utilize a pro rata approach to calculate liability.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re: Revel AC Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-17
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights | Landlord Tenant Law
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Justice Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart J. Moskovitz
    for defendant: Jeffrey A. Cooper, Barry J. Roy, and John H. Harmon (Rabinowitz Lubetkin & Tully)

    Case Number: 17-3607

    Plaintiff Tenant Could Apply Setoff Against Rent Under Bankruptcy Code Where Rent and Recoupment Provisions Arose from Same Lease Transaction

  • In re IMMC Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-10
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Biotechnology | Health Care
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Rendell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1447

    Bankruptcy court properly declined to transfer an adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §1631 because exercising jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding so as to transfer it under §1631 would have been ultra vires, regardless of whether bankruptcy courts fell under §610's definition of courts. Affirmed.

  • Selective Ins. Co. of the Southeast v. Goldin

    Publication Date: 2018-11-06
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Insurance Litigation
    Industry: Insurance | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1313

    The court denied a defendant's motion to amend, because the statute of limitations had already expired with respect to its proposed counterclaims.

  • In re W.R. Grace & Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-08-28
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Mass Torts
    Industry: Insurance | Mining and Resources
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1025

    The bankruptcy court correctly held that plaintiffs' Montana claims were included in the terms of the channeling injunction in the asbestos settlement agreement because the claims fit the text of the injunction and were not excluded from it but vacated and remanded the portion of the decision that the Montana claims could be enjoined under §524(g)(4). Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

  • In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-08-22
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Civil Appeals | Creditors' and Debtors' Rights
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Ambro
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip D. Anker, George W. Shuster, Jr., Benjamin W. Loveland, Adam G. Landis and Matthew B. McGuire for appellants
    for defendant: Michael D. DeBaecke, Mark D. Kotwick, Bradley R. Aronstam, Nicholas D. Mozal, Benjamin J. Schladweiler, George A. Davis, Jonathan Rosenberg, Daniel S. Shamah, Andrew Sorkin and Peter M. Friedman for appellees; Neil B. Glassman and Michael S. Kim for amicus curiae in support of appellants.

    Case Number: D68258

    Appellants were not entitled to a distribution because they did not qualify for any priority treatment under the waterfall provisions of an inter-creditor agreement.