Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
[02/21] In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
In bankruptcy proceedings in which state-law claims were asserted, the district court's decision not to abstain from hearing the claims is reversed and the case remanded to state court, where: 1) mandatory abstention under 28 USC section 1334(c)(2) was appropriate under a four-factor test, given the complexity of the state law issues, the deference owed to state courts in deciding state law issues where possible, and the minimal effect of the state cases on the federal bankruptcy action and on the administration of the underlying estates; and 2) the argument that mandatory abstention did not apply because the cases could have been commenced in federal court had been waived, and was outside the scope of the mandate set forth in a previous opinion of the Second Circuit.
[02/10] In re McCormick
In bankruptcy proceedings in which a bank sought repayment of a loan that it claimed was secured by a deed of trust on two contiguous parcels of the debtor's property, the lower courts' order that the bank's lien on one of the parcels was avoided is affirmed, where: 1) the deed was unrecorded as to that parcel; 2) the bankruptcy trustee was only imputed with the notice of the deed that would be imputed to a bona fide purchaser of the tract under state law; and 2) North Carolina law allowed a purchaser to rely exclusively on the official recordation index of the county to discover liens, regardless of what other independent knowledge that purchaser might have.
[02/09] McDaniel v. Blust
In a suit regarding conduct by members of a law firm and an accountant during bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before filing suit as required by the Barton doctrine.
[02/09] Matter of SK Foods, L.P.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, denied a motion to remove the trustee and disqualify his counsel and to issue a protective order requiring the return of the documents, interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where each of the orders was not a final, appealable order.
