Consent from administrative creditors provided grounds for approving DIP financing and a sale when the estate was administratively insolvent.

Bankruptcy Judge Robert Mark held that the Section 362(b)(2)(A)(v) exception to the automatic stay covers more than imminent or ongoing sexual abuse.

Bankruptcy Judge Scott Grossman adopted the analysis by Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh in concluding that creditors are entitled to notice of the claims bar date, not just notice of the filing.

A Sub V case was not of a ‘size or exceptional nature’ to justify a post-petition retainer when counsel could file interim fee applications.

A district court in Florida upheld Bankruptcy Judge Peter Russin in holding that substantive consolidation does not require an adversary proceeding, a summons or a complaint.

Disagreeing with two bankruptcy courts in Houston, Miami’s Judge Isicoff holds that a Sub V plan with a nonvoting class can be confirmed only as a nonconsensual plan.

Federal Rule 60(b) can’t ‘end run’ Section 1144, Bankruptcy Judge Kimball holds.

If a confirmation order is found not to be equitably moot on appeal, the debtor can’t raise equitable mootness again on remand.

Taggart doesn’t give more protection to a purchaser of debt than it does to the original creditor, Judge Scott Grossman says.

Bankruptcy Judge Russin declines to follow the Third Circuit and adopts the conclusion of bankruptcy courts holding that Sub S status is estate property.