The Illinois Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog

Entries categorized as ‘ch 11’

In re Tekena USA, 09-16969

November 24, 2009 · Leave a Comment

In re Tekena USA, LLC, 09-16969
Issued: November 19, 2009
Judge: Jacqueline P. Cox
Summary: The Court grants Creditor’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court agrees with Movant’s allegations that Debtor’s petition violated § 1112 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code’s “Good Faith” requirement for Chapter 11. Movant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal is justified.

View and download the opinion in PDF format here.

Categories: 1112(b) · bad faith · bankruptcy · ch 11 · cox · dismissal

Can you spell i-r-o-n-y?

November 12, 2009 · Leave a Comment

11-09 Advanta files for bankruptcy (CNN Small Business)

Brother Can You Spare $331 Million?

We would have accepted either C-I-T or A-D-V-A-N-T-A as a correct answer

As reported all over the Web, including this story by CNN, credit card overlord and perennial heavy-handed creditor Advanta filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection a few days ago – just one week after CIT Group, a top secured lender to small business, did the same. Both lenders experienced (ha!) a sharp rise in defaults. Welcome to the world of the consumer. Personally I hope that their creditors show them no mercy. If the Bankruptcy System is to work then it must be an equal handicap for large and small. If Advanta or CIT are reconstituted through Chapter 11 I can only hope that this time the intention is to help small business and business owners – not to hound them to death as both creditors are famous for.

Categories: Middle class · article · assets · bailout · bankruptcy · business · business filings · ch 11 · consumer · credit · credit cards · current-events · disposable · income · individual · liability · means test · median income · secured
Tagged: , , , ,

corrected notice: Change in J. Wedoff’s Hearing Schedules

October 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

bankruptcy-court-seal.jpg

Chapter 7 and 11 Calls

Effective immediately new motions to be heard after Oct. 12 should be noticed for Tue or Wed at 9:30 a.m.

Effectivethe week of Oct. 5 motions and set matters to be heard that week will be set for Thu, Oct. 8.

Effective the week of Oct. 12 J. Wedoff will begin hearing cases on Tuesdays and Wednesdays [regular schedule]. New motions, status hearings, or other set matters now scheduled for a Tue or Wed after Oct. 12 will be heard on the Tue or Wed on which they are scheduled.

Any motion already noticed for a Thu after Oct. 12 will still be heard as set noticed unless movant chooses to re-notice for a Tue or Wed after Oct. 12.

Chapter 13 Call

Judge Doyle will continue to hear Judge Wedoff’s Chapter 13 call on Thursdays at the regularly scheduled times until further notice.

Thank you for your cooperation during the last month in rescheduling Judge Wedoff’s Chapter 7 and 11 matters for Thursdays

To view and download this information in pdf format click here

Categories: ED · IL · ND · administrative · adversary · business filings · call · case update · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · current-events · data · doyle · filings · notice · opinion · schedule · wedoff · work

FRBP 9037 Privacy Protection for Filings with the Court

September 30, 2009 · Leave a Comment

bankruptcy-court-seal.jpg
To use PACER/RACER you must now agree to be bound by the following redaction policy (Rule 9037. Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court)

Rule 9037. Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court

a) REDACTED FILINGS. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual’s birth;
(3) the minor’s initials; and
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.

b) EXEMPTIONS FROM THE REDACTION REQUIREMENT. The redaction requirement does not apply to the following:
(1) a financial-account number that identifies the property allegedly subject to forfeiture in a forfeiture proceeding;
(2) the record of an administrative or agency proceeding unless filed with a proof of claim;
(3) the official record of a state-court proceeding;
(4) the record of a court or tribunal, if that record was not subject to the redaction requirement when originally filed;
(5) a filing covered by subdivision (c) of this rule; and
(6) a filing that is subject to § 110 of the Code.

c) FILINGS MADE UNDER SEAL. The court may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. The court may later unseal the filing or order the entity that made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record.

d) PROTECTIVE ORDERS. For cause, the court may by order in a case under the Code:
(1) require redaction of additional information; or
(2) limit or prohibit a nonparty’s remote electronic access to a document filed with the court.

e) OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL UNREDACTED FILING UNDER SEAL. An entity making a redacted filing may also file an unredacted copy under seal. The court must retain the unredacted copy as part of the record.

f) OPTION FOR FILING A REFERENCE LIST. A filing that contains redacted information may be filed together with a reference list that identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed. The list must be filed under seal and may be amended as of right. Any reference in the case to a listed identifier will be construed to refer to the corresponding item of information.

g) WAIVER OF PROTECTION OF IDENTIFIERS. An entity waives the protection of subdivision (a) as to the entity’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.

Categories: 9037 · Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. · IL · ND · bankruptcy · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · consumer · current affairs · current-events · data · filings · individual · legislation · notice · opinion · research · right to privacy

In re Raymond Group/Raymond Group v. Pope Co.

September 18, 2009 · Leave a Comment

In re Raymond Professional Group, Inc. et al., 06 B 16748
Raymond Prof. Group v. William A. Pope Co., 07 A 00639

Opinion Issued Sep. 15, 2009
By Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

To view the opinion in PDF format click here

Categories: BAPCPA · ED · IL · ND · adversary · bankruptcy · business filings · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · cir 7 · judge · opinion · research · schmetterer