Delaware Bankruptcy Insider:
Be In The Know

About This Blog


The Delaware Bankruptcy Insider is a premier blog designed to bring its readers a comprehensive analysis of the latest Delaware corporate bankruptcy news and rulings.  Brought to you by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Get Updates By Email

Topics

Judges

Recent Posts

Helpful Links


Federal Courts App
 (iTunes)
Federal Courts App (Google Play)
The Bankruptcy Code
Delaware Bankruptcy Court                                                                          Delaware Bankruptcy Court - Local Rules and Orders
Delaware District Court
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Courts
Office of the United States Trustee for the Third Circuit
Delaware Bankruptcy American Inn of Court

For more information


Karen B. Skomorucha Owens, Esq.
(302) 504-3725
kowens@ashby-geddes.com

Aaron H. Stulman, Esq.
(302) 504-3728
astulman@ashby-geddes.com

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1150
(302) 654-1888               

Showing 6 posts recarding Judge Leonard P. Stark.

“One Nortel” Inches Closer to Final Adjudication of the Allocation Decision—Direct Certification to the Third Circuit Granted

In re Nortel Networks Inc., No. 15-624 (LPS), 2016 WL 2899225 (D. Del. May 17, 2016)

After the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied any further appeal to the Allocation Decision in the Canadian proceeding as a “barrier to progress”, the Delaware District Court, acting sua sponte, directed the parties to submit letter briefs on the issue of whether the District Court should grant direct certification to the Third Circuit.  Having both the benefit of the Ontario Court’s denial of further appeals, and the appeals themselves, Chief Judge Stark granted certification of an appeal of the Allocation Decision to the Third Circuit because the case involves a matter of public importance and certification will materially advance the case. Read More ›

District Court Denies Motion To Withdraw the Reference In Nortel, May Consider Renewed Motion At A Later Time

SNMP Research Int’l, Inc. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. (In re Nortel Networks, Inc.), No. 15-449 (LPS), 2015 WL 5275966 (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2015)

Chief Judge Stark of the District Court of Delaware recently denied a motion to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding in the cross-border bankruptcy case of In re Nortel Networks, Inc.  The Court held that due to the infancy of the proceeding and the Bankruptcy Court’s familiarity with the issues, the Bankruptcy Court would be better suited to preside over the proceeding until, if ever, a jury trial becomes necessary. Read More ›

District Court Finds a Series of Agreements to be One – Reverses and Remands to Bankruptcy Court

Huron Consulting Servs., LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), No. 14-693 (LPS), 2015 WL 4205146 (D. Del. July 13, 2015)

In the spring of 2014, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was presented with a contested assumption dispute involving six agreements between Physiotherapy Holdings Inc. and its various affiliates (together, the “Debtors”) and Huron Consulting Services, LLC (“Huron”).  While the Debtors sought to assume just one – a Licensing Agreement necessary to ongoing operations – Huron argued that all six agreements were integrated and must be assumed together or not at all.  For reasons discussed in our previous post, Judge Gross sided with the Debtors, allowing them to assume only the Licensing Agreement.  This appeal followed. Read More ›

Delaware District Court Transfers Declaratory Relief Action Based on the Anticipatory Filing Exception to the First Filing Rule

Flintkote Co. v. Aviva P.L.C., No. 13-103-LPS, 2015 WL 1405922 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2015)

This Memorandum Opinion stems from a Third Circuit reversal of a Delaware District Court ruling that granted a motion to compel arbitration and dismissed as moot a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer filed by Defendant Aviva P.L.C. (“Aviva”).  Because the Third Circuit vacated the Order denying the motion to transfer as moot, Aviva renewed its motion.  Such renewed motion is the subject of this Memorandum Opinion.  In granting the relief requested, Chief Judge Stark ruled that the anticipatory filing exception to the first filing rule applied to the facts of this case and transferred venue from District of Delaware to the District of Northern California. Read More ›

Practice Point: Direct Appeals to the Third Circuit When A Majority Of Appellants And Appellees Agree

Stanziale v. Car-Ber Testing, Inc. (In re Conex Holdings, LLC), --- B.R. ---- (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2015)

This Memorandum involves a request for direct appeal from a Bankruptcy Court Order granting summary judgment in favor of Car-Ber Testing, Inc. (the “Appellee”) on its new value defense to certain preferential payments received from Conex Holdings, LLC (with its affiliated entities, the “Debtors”).  Delaware’s District Court denied the request of the chapter 7 trustee (the “Appellant”) despite Appellee joining in the request, ruling that Appellant had not shown that (i) no controlling authority or matter of public importance existed; (ii) conflicting decisions required resolution; or that (iii) direct appeal would materially advance the progress of the case.  28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Read More ›

A Simple Example: Withdrawal Of The Reference Denied By Delaware District Court Despite Federal RICO Claim

Barry v. Santander Bank, N.A. (In re Liberty State Benefits of Delaware Inc.), Civ. No. 14-677-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2015)

On March 12, 2015, Chief Judge Stark of Delaware’s District Court denied the request of defendant Santander Bank, N.A. (the “Defendant”) to withdraw the reference, rejecting Defendant’s arguments for mandatory and permissive withdrawal.  Richard Barry, the chapter 11 trustee of the debtor (the “Plaintiff”), alleged in the complaint almost entirely non-bankruptcy causes of action, including violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”)—the sole basis for the Defendant’s mandatory withdrawal request.  Ultimately, the Court found, under Delaware precedent, that consideration of the federal RICO claim was not “substantial and material” to resolving the proceeding and thus, the claim alone did not warrant mandatory withdrawal.  Likewise, the Court held that the Defendant was unable to carry its burden for permissive withdrawal “for cause shown.” Read More ›