Cases

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RELATED RELIEF CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sven Etzelsberger brings claims, on behalf of himself and others similarly situation, against Defendant Fisker Automotive, Inc. (“Fisker”) for alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 e

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION By an order dated June 30, 2014, the court consolidated three securities fraud lawsuits filed against defendants Henrik Fisker, Bernhard Koehler, Joe DaMour, Peter McDonnell, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC, Ray Lane, Keith Dauben-speck, Richard Li Tzar Kai, and Ace Strength, Ltd. (collectively “defendants”).

Chapter 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 13 & 265 MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. INTRODUCTION The Court’s Memorandum Opinion will address the Debtors’ Motion ... Authoriz*56ing the Sale of Substantially All of the Debtors’ Assets ... (the “Sale Motion”) (D.I. 13). Also before the Cou

MEMORANDUM OPINION Clifton R. Jessup, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge On February 16, 2016, this Adversary Proceeding came before the Court for Telephonic Status Conference on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Motion to Continue. After the Status Conference, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Motion to Continue, vacating the deadline to file Motions for Summary Judgm

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AMENDING THE COURT’S JUNE 9, 2014 ORDER AND JUNE 18, 2014 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER COMBINED WITH NOTICE OF THE ENTRY THEREOF DAVID S. KENNEDY, Chief Judge. RML Development, Inc., dba Pinetree Place Apartments dba Raintree Apartments, the above-named Chapter 11 debt- or (“RML”), previously sought to sell two residential apartment complexes located in Memphis, Tennessee, outside the ordinary cou

OPINION1 Sontchi, J. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are two related motions to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in this adversary proceeding. Ultimately, beyond the comprehensive arguments, this matter is simple. The parties put forward antithetic theses to justify their priority entitlement to the funds in the bank account at issue here. Those f

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ Nos. 20-3485, 20-3486, 20-3487, 20-3488 ____________ In re: IMERYS TALC AMERICA, Inc., a/k/a Luzenac America, Inc. a/k/a Imerys Talc Ohio Inc. a/k/a Imerys Talc Delaware, Inc., et al., Debtors Cyprus Historical Excess Insurers,

RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); Motion to Dismiss; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Failure to State a Claim; Loan Program; Loan Guarantee Program; Implied-in-Fact Contract; Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Implied Duty to Fairly Consider; Oral Assurances; Promissory Estoppel; Equitable Estop-pel OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION SEAN H. LANE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Before the Court is a motion by the above-captioned debtors and debtors-in-*375possession (collectively, the “Debtors”) seeking to (i) equitably subordinate the claims of Aero Investors LLC (“Aero Investors”) and MGF Sourcing Holdings, Limited (“MGF Holdings” and, together with Aer

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Congress has authorized the Department of Energy (“the DOE”) to offer direct financial support to the manufacturers of clean energy vehicles and related components. See 42 U.S.C. § 17013 (2012). In accordance with this statutory mandate, the DOE administers various loan programs, including the Advanced Technology Vehic

*162Re: D.I. 936, 1249 OPINION KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. INTRODUCTION The issue at hand is this: are claims of Membership Unit Purchasers to be subordinated pursuant to section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code because they are or are not securities of the Debtors or an affiliate of the Debtors? The Court will deny subordination and therefo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) XP VEHICLES, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 13-cv-0037 (KBJ) ) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., )

KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. OPINION In this adversary proceeding there are two issues for the Court to decide. First, does the Court have “arising in” or “related to” jurisdiction and, second, should the Court abstain from deciding the case. The parties have briefed and argued the issues. On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the plaintiffs factual allegations in th

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. The Court is addressing the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). Emerald Capital Advis-ors Corp., in its capacity as trustee (the “Trustee”) for FAH Liquidating Trust, filed the Complaint in which it seeks to avoid, recover, and have turned over alleged constructively fraudulent transfers in the total amount of $32,579,798.87 (the

MEMORANDUM OPINION J. Michael Deasy, Bankruptcy Judge I.INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Court’s order dated October 8, 2015, approving procedures in connection with the sale of substantially all of the assets of Tempnology, LLC (the “Debtor”), the Debtor conducted an auction on November 5, 2015 (the “Auction”), at which Schleicher & Stebbins Hotels, L.L.C. (“S & S”),

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S ATTEMPT TO RETAIN AND PAY A MEDIATOR WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THIS COURT’S APPROVAL UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 2014(a), AND THE LOCAL RULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Docket No. 332] Jeff Bohm, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge I. Introduction Is a mediator a “profe

MEMORANDUM: OPINION LAURIE SELBER SILVERSTEIN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE . Before the Court is the' Opt-Out Lenders’ motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)1 to certify this Court’s order 2 confirming the Debtors’ Prepackaged Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC [D.I. 182] (as amended, the “Pl

MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT WILLIAM T. THURMAN, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge The matter before the Court is the Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule Of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 to Approve Settlement Agreement By and Between CS Mining, LLC and David J. Richards, LLC d/b/a Western US Mineral Investors, LLC (the ‘WUMI Motion”) filed by the Debtor and debtor-in-possession, CS Mining,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT JOHN HARTLEY; DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN HARTLEY’S CROSS MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES I. COHN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant John Hartley [DE 184] (“Motion for Summary Judgment”) and Defendant Hartley’s Cross Motion for Dismissal of

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-104V (to be published) ************************* JAMES AND BRANDY RILEY, * on behalf of * Chief Special Master Corcoran E.R., a minor, * * Petitioners