Equitable Mootness in the Eleventh Circuit – Due Diligence Required
(Getty Images)[1]
Last month, Judge Laura Grandy, a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of Illinois, entered confirmation opinion in STC, Inc.’s Chapter 11 case. The opinion is noteworthy for 2 reasons. First, it amounts to an excellent treatise on the Section 1129 confirmation requirements.
After an unplanned, exactly one month hiatus, we’re back! This long overdue post comes to you from Point Clear, Alabama, the site of the 2016 11th Circuit Judicial Conference, an event that brings together all of the federal judges in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (i.e., the U.S. Marshals’ least favorite project every 2 years). Lest the conference appear more exclusive than it really is, 28 U.S.C. § 333 mandates that common folks like me get to attend.
Every once in a while, we encounter a case that forces us to ponder the potential breadth of the bankruptcy discharge. In re Lombard Flats, LLC, a Northern District of California case from March 23, 2016, is such a case. In short, the court held that an alter ego claim against a Chapter 11 debtor that is based on pre-petition facts and claims is included in the bankruptcy discharge by operation of § 1141(d) and § 524(a).
This will be a placeholder post for the Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, LLC timeline.
(Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/The National Law Journal)
One person’s successful confirmation of a plan of reorganization is another person’s bad faith abuse of the rules. Last month in In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals waded into just such an area: the intersection of claims buying, insider status, and plan voting. Specifically, it addressed whether a non-insider creditor who purchases a claim from an insider is considered an insider for voting purposes.