Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Case No. 08-13555), Adv. Proc. No. 10-03266 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. August 15, 2011) : Southern District of New York, United States Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck issues this Case Management Order in Relation to the Impact of Stern v. Marshall following the receipt of briefing from Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stern. Far more than a “case management order”, Judge Peck indicates his initial impressions of the Stern decision. Among the most significant of Judge Peck’s statements is his conclusion that: “JPMorgan reads Stern broadly—too broadly, in the Court’s view. The JPMorgan position paper argues that unless Plaintiffs move promptly to withdraw the reference, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed. JPMorgan is wrong: Stern does not support dismissal.”
Articles tagged with: Stern v. Marshall
Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy: Defendant JPMorgan’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
08/05/2011 – Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed in the Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Adversary Proceedings by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) filed by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York, NY) by attorney Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr.; Of counsel: Harold S. Novikoff, Amy R. Wolf, Douglas K. Mayer, David C. Bryan, Emil A. Kleinhaus and Alexander B. Lees .
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan” or “Defendant”) argues that, in view of Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (“Stern”), the Bankruptcy Court lacks authority to determine any of the 49 claims in the Amended Complaint of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (collectively with LBHI, “Plaintiff”). Registered users click here to see a copy of this brief.
Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Bankruptcy: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. – Plaintiffs Memorandum Addressing the Effect of Stern v. Marshall
Plaintiffs Memorandum Addressing the Effect of the Supreme Courts Decision in Stern v. Marshall on the Bankruptcy Courts Ability to Render Final Judgment on the Common Law Claims filed in the Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Adversary Proceedings by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) filed by Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle LLP (New York, NY) attorneys Joseph D. Pizzurro; L. P. Harrison 3rd; Michael J. Moscato; Nancy E. Delaney; Peter J. Behmke; and Cindi Eilbott Giglio; and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP attorneys John B. Quinn and Erica Taggart as Special Counsel to Plaintiff Intervenor, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Plaintiff”) argues that, despite the United States Supreme Court holding in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the Court has the power to enter final orders with respect to the 49 counts asserted in the First Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) — including the common law counts — and the eight counts asserted in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“JPMorgan”) counterclaim. This brief is Plaintiff’s half of a duet of briefing requested by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck. Reading the 2 briefs side by side, two things are clear: the meaning of Stern is subject to broad and conflicting interpretation; and the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts are left with an task of conducting an initial evaluation of the issues that will entail much of the legal issue analysis that formerly could wait until a motion for summary judgment or even trial. Registered users click here to see a copy of this brief.
Kimball Hill, Inc. Bankruptcy: KHI Liquidation Trust v. Wisenbaker Builder Services, Inc. et al – Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
07/21/2011 – Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed in the Kimball Hill, Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Wisenbaker Builder Services, Inc. et al before Judge Sonderby in the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern) Filed by King & Spalding LLP (Houston, TX) Attorneys Henry J. Kaim, Edward L. Ripley, and Eric M. English; and Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP (Chicago, IL) Attorney Darren B. Watts .