In re Dana Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Invictus Glob. Mgmt. v. Monomoy Capital Partners LLC (In re Grupo Aeromexicom, S.A.B. de C.V.)

    20-11563 JPM (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    For the first factor, the effect of remand on administration of the estate is minimal as Debtors' case is closed and most distributions have been made. See In re Dana Corp., Inc., 2011 WL 6259640, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011); [Hr'g Tr., Bankr. Docket No. 2966, 6-7; Final Decree.] Whether the Plaintiff succeeds or fails in the State Law Action is irrelevant to implementation of the Plan.

  2. In re Solutia, Inc.

    653 B.R. 99 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Third, whether and to what extent the Movants are liable under the contractual terms of the SUAs is largely a matter of Missouri contract law that should be heard by the Missouri Courts. See In re Dana Corp., No. 06-10354, 2011 WL 6259640, at *4-*5 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (permissively abstaining from interpreting sale order because essence of controversy was liability in state court breach of contract action). The Motion to Reopen is an attempt to defend against liability in two separate jurisdictions.

  3. In re Old Carco LLC

    636 B.R. 347 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Abstaining from adjudication of proceeding where, among other things, non-bankruptcy issues predominated over bankruptcy issues

    In re Motors Liquidation Co. , 457 B.R. 276, 288–89 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (abstaining in favor of another federal court); See alsoIn re Dana Corp., Inc. , No. 06-10354 BRL, 2011 WL 6259640, at *3 n.4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (same); In re Lear Corp. , No. 0914326 ALG, 2009 WL 3191369, at *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2009) (same).

  4. In re Ritchie Risk–Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd.

    471 B.R. 331 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that "[w]ith respect to constructive notice, publication of relevant information in a newspaper is sufficient . . . "

    Bancorp asserts that this Court should permissively abstain here, as it did in In re Dana because adjudication of this dispute will require the Court to address non-bankruptcy issues and apply state and constitutional law. See In re Dana, No. 06–10354, 2011 WL 6259640, at *5 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011) (abstaining where resolution of the issues centered on application of federal labor law). This Court finds permissive abstention inappropriate for two principal reasons.