The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying the Debtor's motion. There is a high burden on a party seeking relief from a judgment based on...
In the unpublished decisions, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirmed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing the Chapter 13 case for failure to timely file a Chapter 13 plan....
Judge(s):
Honorable PAPPAS, JURY, and KLEIN (sitting by designation), Bankruptcy Judges.
In the unpublished decisions, the BAP determined that the bankruptcy court's findings were clearly erroneous and reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment. The BAP determined that a finding of...
Summarized by Michael Nestor , Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
10 years 7 months ago
Citation:
In re: One2One Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 13-3410 (3d Cir. July 21, 2015)
Ruling:
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal of a confirmed chapter 11 plan on grounds of equitable mootness.
Judge(s):
Chief Judge McKee; Judge Greenway, Jr.; and Judge Krause
In the issue of first impression before the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the BAP reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court's order denying the Chapter 13 Debtors motion to...
Order affirming District Court affirming District Court decision affirming Bankruptcy Court 1) dismissing involuntary petition; 2) denying the petitioners’ motion to withdraw the reference; and...
In the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") ruling deemed not appropriate for publication, the BAP dismissed the appeal as moot. During the pending appeal, the Debtor's Chapter 11...
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 12-17176 (July 1, 2015)
Ruling:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's decision dismissing on equitable mootness grounds an appeal from bankruptcy court's order confirming a chapter 11 plan...
Judge(s):
Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges
The appellant was not a customer for purposes of the Securities Investor Protection Act because the Court's precedents require that a customer must have "entrusted" asset to a failed broker-dealer.
Summarized by Sarah Smegal , Bartlett Hackett Feinberg PC
10 years 8 months ago
Citation:
Ross v. Garcia (In re Garcia), 2015 WL 3889388, --- B.R. ---- (1st Cir. B.A.P. Jun. 24, 2015)
Ruling:
Regarding the order denying motion for reconsideration, the BAP found the creditor-appellant "failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying Rule 60(b)(6) relief" and further found no error in...
