Skip to main content

§ 1334(c)(2)

HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Wolf

Ruling
Mandatory abstention not warranted as state court lacks jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.(Bankr. D.N.M.)
Issue(s)
Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings; Abstention; Mandatory Abstention.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Wolf Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

:
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Commercial opinion summary, case decided on June 04, 2024 , LexisNexis #0824-022

In re W.R. Grace & Co.

Ruling
Creditor not entitled to alllowance of a proof of claim as seven years has already passed sincethe bar date. (Bankr. D. Del.)
Issue(s)
Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings; Abstention; Mandatory Abstention.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re W.R. Grace & Co. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on December 28, 2016 , LexisNexis #0117-118

Ashland Inc. v. G-I Holdings Inc. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.)

Ruling
Mandatory abstention required as action could be timely adjudicated in state court. (Bankr.D.N.J.)
Issue(s)
Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings; Abstention; Mandatory Abstention.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Ashland Inc. v. G-I Holdings Inc. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on December 21, 2016 , LexisNexis #0117-117

Stoe v. Flaherty

Ruling
Court ruled that mandatory abstention applied to cases removed to federal court including the case of a former officer for unpaid severance benefits since the case was related to but did not arise in a bankruptcy case, did not arise under the Code, and was started in state court.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff former officer sought review of a decision of the district court, which denied the officer's motion for mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 after defendants, current and former officers of the officer's former employer, removed the officer's action for unpaid severance benefits to federal court. Defendants were also ultimately successful on the merits of the case.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Stoe v. Flaherty Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
opinion summary, case decided on January 23, 2006 , LexisNexis #0206-023