  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Eastern Pilots Merger Comm., Inc. (In re Continental Airlines, Inc.) ---F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1191031 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2007) (Debtor cannot be required to attend arbitration of claim that had been discharged in bankruptcy. Eastern pilots asserted that Continental pilots were liable under Eastern collective bargaining agreement, which required arbitration. Eastern pilots also asserted that even though Continental's liability under collective bargaining agreement had been discharged, Continental's duty to arbitrate had not. The court held that an arbitration that could not result in an enforceable award would be futile, so Continental would not be required to attend arbitration.)
Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Electric Mach. Enters., Inc. (In re Electric Mach. Enters., Inc.), 479 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) (Bankruptcy court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration of dispute concerning how much general contractor owed subcontractor that was Chapter 11 debtor. General contractor had resolved payment dispute with landowner on behalf of all subcontractors. While general contractor was negotiating with landowner, general contractor and debtor entered into a tolling agreement that included an arbitration provision. After the resolution with the landowner, general contractor and debtor disputed the amount of the settlement funds that should be paid to debtor. Bankruptcy court erroneously concluded that this was a core matter. The dispute between debtor and the general contractor was not of the type listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), it did not involve a right created by federal law and it was not a proceeding that would arise only in bankruptcy. Accordingly, this was a non-core matter. Furthermore, even if this had been a core matter, the bankruptcy court failed to determine whether the arbitration of the dispute would have inherently conflicted with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.)
In re Senior Cottages of America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) (While bankruptcy court had discretion to deny the trustee's motion to amend his fraudulent transfer complaint against insiders of the debtor, the district court erroneously upheld the denial on the basis that the trustee did not have standing to assert a claim when the damages would be payable to creditors. A trustee holds claims belonging to the debtor at the time of filing pursuant to § 704(1), and claims that a debtor was wrongfully deprived of its assets pre-petition is a claim a trustee has standing to assert. There is no requirement in the avoidance provisions of § 541 that creditors not be the primary beneficiaries of a trustee's
