  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
brought these facts before the bankruptcy court through a declaratory judgment action against Kodak, but chose not to.)
Bankruptcy Code Cases
In the Matter Of AMCO Insurance, 444 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. March 31, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court erred in ordering substantive consolidation of debtor and non-debtor nunc pro tunc, where Bankruptcy Court had previously authorized creditor to pursue litigation with non-debtor in state court and consolidation would void the litigation. Considering that result of settlement was not unexpected, that no new facts warranted a change in the status quo, and that nunc pro tunc consolidation would significantly prejudice the settling creditor, Bankruptcy Court either had no jurisdiction under § 105(a) to apply consolidation nunc pro tunc, or it abused its discretion.)
In re Miles, 436 F.3d 291 (1st Cir. Feb. 7, 2006) (District Court did not err in reimposing automatic stay that had been lifted by Bankruptcy Court. Chapter 13 debtor had listed mortgage holder as unsecured in its confirmed plan. Mortgage holder then obtained post-confirmation stay relief, but debtor later initiated adversary proceeding to determine validity of lien as it had promised to do in its plan. The District Court's decision to reimpose the stay was based on this change in the underlying circumstances occurring after the Bankruptcy Court granted stay relief.)
In re Official Cmte. of Unsecured Creditors, 453 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. June 27, 2006) (Bankruptcy court has power to recharacterize an allowed claim as equity rather than debt, even in the absence of inequitable conduct by the claimant. Recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded the court by § 105(a) and facilitates the application of the priority scheme set forth in § 726. A court may consider many factors in determining whether to recharacterize a claim. In this case, the bankruptcy court appropriately recharacterized the claim based on the claimant's insider status vis-a-vis the debtor, the lack of a fixed maturity date for the purported loan, the fact that the debtor was not required to repay the claimant until the debtor became profitable, the debtor's history of unprofitability and the claimant's history of assuming the debtor's losses. The fact that the transactions between the debtor and the claimant involved the sale of inventory rather than the advance of funds did not prohibit the recharacterization of the claim.)
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 126 S.Ct. 990 (S. Ct. Jan. 23, 2006) (The Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution contemplates limited
