Law Commons^™

Giant Eagle, Inc. V. Phar-Mor, Inc., Courtney Pasquariello

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Although under Pennsylvania common law a lessor has a duty to mitigate damages and is unable to claim damages that could have been avoided, no legal proposition exists that an injured lessor who attempts mitigation of damages resulting from a lessee’s misconduct must bear the consequences of a failed effort. Although the lessor received partial mitigation of a claim against a liable lessee, the lessee nonetheless remains liable for his previous breach.

Non-Claim Status Of Environmental Clean-Up Injunctions Limited To States, Klevis Peshtani

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Does the equitable right of an individual, whose property has been damaged by the debtor’s pollution, to injunctive clean-up relief constitute a “claim” that may be discharged in the debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy? This was the issue of first impression which the Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court dealt with in Krafczek v. Exide Corp., No. 00-1965, 2007 WL 1199530, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2007). The Krafczek court answered the question in the affirmative, 2007 WL 1199530 at *3, setting new precedent in an already narrow area of Bankruptcy Law upon which other courts had trodden carefully.

This article …

Can Software Be A Bankruptcy Petition Preparer?, Thomas Szaniawski

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Recently, in Reynoso v. United States (In re Reynoso) — a case of first impression for the Ninth Circuit that addressed the intersection of cyberspace and bankruptcy — the court held that a provider of web-based bankruptcy software was a bankruptcy petition preparer (“BPP”) under 11 U.S.C. section 110 and that under California law, the features and functionality of the software went beyond mere typesetting and constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Reynoso v. United States (In re Reynoso), 477 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2007). In re Reynoso is significant because prior to this …

What Exactly Does The Term “Fair And Equitable” Mean?, Peter Doggett Jr.

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Code outlines a priority scheme that must be strictly adhered to. 11 U.S.C. § 1129. According to the Code, “the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). When faced with the question of extending the codified priority rule to settlement approvals, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. AWECO Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1984) held …

Repossession Does Not Alter Debtor’S Rights In Collateral, Ian Park

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

Does section 541(a)(1) of title 11 of the U.S. Code, which defines a debtor’s bankruptcy “estate,” include collateral which has been lawfully repossessed by secured creditors pursuant to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) prior to the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy? The courts have split in answering this pro-debtor issue by defining “estate” differently. Recently, in Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Curry (In re Curry), 509 F.3d 735, 735 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals split with the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits and held that a secured creditor’s repossession of collateral under the state’s …

The Exclusive View V. The Non-Exclusive View: Can A Creditor’S Claim Be Dismissed For Failing To Provide Supporting Documentation?, Robert J. Ryan

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

May a creditor’s claim be dismissed simply because he failed to provide supporting documentation in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001? The answer depends on which jurisdiction the creditor is pursuing its claim in. Courts are currently sharply divided on the issue. If the creditor is fortunate enough to be in a jurisdiction which follows the “exclusive” view, which is the majority rule, the answer to this problem will be yes. However, if the creditor happens to be in a jurisdiction which follows the “non-exclusive” view, which is the minority rule, the answer to this problem will …