The zealous advocacy of Rattet Pasternak, LLP’s often requires us to address novel issues or issues of first impression to our local Bankruptcy and Federal District Courts.
In these circumstances, our attorneys not only rise to the occasion but as a result of our successful creative strategies, the Judge often publish their decisions in these matters thereby creating new law. Below is a compilation of some of these published decisions in various representations including Chapter 11 reorganizations, Liquidations as well as Individual Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.
- In re 495 Central Park Avenue Assocs., 136 B.R. 626 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992)
Bankruptcy Court approved Chapter 11 debtor’s loan from shareholder as senior priority loan over the objection of secured creditor based upon debtor’s inability to borrow funds on any less onerous terms and adequate protection of secured creditors position. Bankruptcy Court also held that the loan did not violate absolute priority rule which is a confirmation standard, not preconfirmation contested matter.
- Leary v. Warnaco, 251 B.R. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
Chapter 7 debtor, who was informed by company after review of her credit report that it would not hire her for position, filed a complaint alleging bankruptcy discrimination. District Court held that Bankruptcy Code provision which prohibits a private employer from discriminating on the basis of bankruptcy status with respect to employment is not limited to discrimination arising after employment offer has been extended but rather applies to all aspects of employment.
- Balaber-Strauss v. Lawrence, 264 B.R. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d Barbara Balber-Strauss v. Sixty-Five Brokers (In re Churchill Mortgage Investment Corp.), 256 B.R. 664 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2000)
Chapter 7 trustee commenced litigation to recover commission paid to brokers in aid of an alleged Ponzi scheme. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the lawsuit against the brokers and held that such commission paid to brokers earned in good faith, without knowledge of the Ponzi scheme were not subject to avoidance as constructively fraudulent transfers.
- Global Land, Inc., Global Recycling and Collection, Inc. v. Mayor and Members of the Common Council of the City of Peekskill (In re Karta Corp.), 296 B.R. 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
Debtors engaged in a Chapter 11 Reorganization who operated a recycling facility removed an Article 78 proceeding to Bankruptcy Court, in which they challenged the city of Peekskill’s finding that the Debtors were in breach of their special use permit. The Defendants filed a motion seeking either the abstention of the Bankruptcy Court or for remand back to the State Court. The Debtors were successful and the District court held that the matter was within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction, that the matter would not be returned to State Court and the City of Peekskill was enjoined from terminating the special use permit pending further Order of the Court.
- Citik Ka Wah Bank Limited v. Virginia Wong (In re Virginia Wong), 291 B.R. 266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003)
Bankruptcy Court partially granted Debtor’s motion to dismiss adversary proceeding regarding discharge and dischargability in which it surveyed the relevant provisions of Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code in Chapter 7 proceedings.
- Pasquale Cartalemi v. Karta Corp., et. al. (In re Karta Corp.), 342 B.R. 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
Creditor appealed decision of Bankruptcy Court which confirmed the Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization which contained non -debtor releases contained in Debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. District Court held that non-debtor releases were justified based upon unique circumstances of the case.
- Pasquale Cartalemi v. Karta Corp., et. al. (In re Karta Corp.), 342 B.R. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
Shareholder of non-debtor related company appealed decision of Bankruptcy Court which confirmed the Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization which contained injunction against shareholder from prosecuting certain claims against Debtor’s principal. District Court held that Bankruptcy Court had to power to enjoin the prosecution of certain claims against non-debtors.
- In re A.C.E. Elevator Co. Inc., 347 B.R. 473 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)
The Trustee of employee welfare benefit plans moved for order directing the Chapter 11 debtor to pay pre-petition delinquent plan contributions, interest, and attorney fees and costs as expenses entitled to administrative priority. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Trustee’s motion in part holding that a delinquently contribution claim is not entitled to administrative priority merely because it was filed post-petition, however, to the extent such contributions are entirely in respect of benefits for retirees, their spouses and dependents, they would be give administrative priority treatment.
- In re St. Casimir Development Corp., 358 B.R. 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
Debtor general partner of a partnership constructed and operated a low-income senior housing complex in Yonkers, New York. Limited partner moved for relief from the automatic stay to effectuate its alleged pre-petition removal of Debtor as general partner. District court reversed Bankruptcy Court, confirmed strict notice requirements for termination of partnership interest and held that the automatic stay should not have been lifted to implement removal in the absence of “cause”.
- Grow Up Japan, Inc. v. Ko Yoshida, (In re Ko Yoshida), 453 B.R. 102 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2010)
Judgment creditor filed an adversary proceeding against the debtor seeking determination that judgment debt was not dischargable. Bankruptcy Court granted debtor’s motion to dismiss holding that employer-employee/store manager relationship between judgment creditor and debtor did not give rise to express, technical, or statutory trust or other cognizable fiduciary connection required by discharge exception for defalcation while acting in fiduciary capacity.