Entries categorized as ‘ch 11’
In re 2715 N. Milwaukee LLC, 09-17543
Issued January 29, 2010
Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Summary The claims of Donald Engel and James Cappello against Debtor, 2715 North Milwaukee, are not barred by the August 17, 2009 claims bar date. Even though the claims were brought after August 17, an effective date has yet to be established by a docketed order. Therefore the claims objections of untimely filing by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Novoa, two creditors of the Debtor, are overruled.
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
Categories: bankruptcy · ch 11 · docket · memorandum opinion · opinion · order · schmetterer
On Monday Muzak Holdings LLC announced that it has completed its financial restructuring and has emerged from bankruptcy protection.The company, which provides background music programming is heard in stores, office buildings and on-hold phone systems, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware a year ago to refinance heavy debt. The Fort Mill, S.C., company said it has significantly improved its balance sheet, reducing its outstanding debt by more than half and realigning its organizational structure to improve its clients’ experience. In a prepared statement Stephen Villa, CEO of Muzak, was hopeful for the post-reorganization future of the company, saying:
As we move into the future, our strengthened capital structure provides us with the renewed ability to invest in new talent and technology that will allow us to provide new offerings and further enhance the first class products and services that our clients have come to expect from Muzak
Insert Muzak joke here …
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.
Posted via email from beyond bankruptcy
Categories: article · bankruptcy · business · business filings · ch 11 · cir 3 · current-events · data · filings
In the last installment of My Law Office we outlined some of the reasons recent law school graduates and inductees to the bar would consider bankruptcy law as their area of concentration. Since then some readers asked whether too many lawyers had not already chosen bankruptcy as their area of concentration, and whether the field was already too crowded to be viable.
Good questions. After all, it’s well known that there are already too many lawyers, and a great many attorneys who’ve been in practice for years were “born again” over the past few years as bankruptcy practitioners. That means the supply of bankruptcy lawyers has risen and will continue to rise.
Surprisingly however, data gathered by the Public Access to Court Electronic Records service (Pacer) indicates that the demand for bankruptcy attorneys still exceeds supply and will do so for years. According to PACER data, the number of new cases filed in 2009 was 46% higher than it was the year before and due to the rising double-digit unemployment rate the number of filings will continue trending upwards through 2010 and beyond.
So get your bankruptcy credentials in order. You have a long and busy career ahead of you.
Part of the My Law Office series prepared exclusively by The Illinois Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog. For more information about starting a practice, bankruptcy law, or to contribute, contact us at mhedayat@mha-law.com.
Categories: Bankrupt · My Law Office · attorneys · bankruptcy · ch 11 · ch 13 · ch 7 · data · economics · economy · forecast · jobs · labor force · work
In re Raymond Professional Group, 06-16748
Raymond Professional Group v. William A. Pope Company, 07-00639
Issued November 25, 2009
Judge Jack B. Schmetterer
Summary The Court denies debtor’s Amended Motion for Sanctions since no basis has been found under 28 U.S.C. §1927, but grants counter-plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Debtors to Pay Witness Deposition Fees in part. Counter-plaintiff is entitled to be paid fees associated with the deposition of Professor Hazard but not Professor Rapoport due to “manifest injustice” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C)(i).
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
Categories: 26(b)(4)(C)(i) · 28 U.S.C. 1927 · Fed. R. Civ. P. · adversary · bankruptcy · ch 11 · judge · manifest injustice · memorandum opinion · opinion · schmetterer
In re Joseph E. Frontzak, 08-8580
Issued December 2, 2009
Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar
Summary Debtor’s failure to give creditor heightened notice regarding Ch. 11 confirmed plan violates creditor’s due process rights under Bk. R. 3017(d) and 2002. Therefore, the Court denies debtor’s motion to enforce the confirmed plan and for sanctions against creditor.
View and download the opinion in PDF format here.
Categories: 2002 · 3017(d) · Bankrupt · Bankruptcy Rules · bankruptcy · ch 11 · confirmed plan · due process · goldgar · heightened notice · memorandum opinion · motion · opinion · rights · sanctions · u.s. constitution
