United States District Court For The District Of Delaware
|United States District Court for the District of Delaware|
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware is the Federal district court having jurisdiction over the entire state of Delaware. The Court sits in Wilmington. Currently, four district judges and five magistrate judges preside over the court.
Because Delaware is the state of incorporation for most major U.S. corporations, the District of Delaware hears and tries many patent and other complex commercial disputes that must be heard in federal court for diversity of citizenship reasons, and hears many appeals from bankruptcy disputes which are filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Appeals from the Court are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which sits in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .
The current United States Attorney for the District of Delaware is David C. Weiss since January 22, 2018.
List Of Former Judges
Chief judges have administrative responsibilities with respect to their circuits, and preside over any panel on which they serve unless the circuit justice is also on the panel. Unlike the Supreme Court, where one justice is specifically nominated to be chief, the office of chief judge rotates among the circuit judges. To be chief, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position.
When the office was created in 1948, the chief judge was the longest-serving judge who had not elected to retire on what has since 1958 been known as or declined to serve as chief judge. After August 6, 1959, judges could not become or remain chief after turning 70 years old. The current rules have been in operation since October 1, 1982.
Is There A Fee
Yes. Local counsel is a requirement of pro hac vice admission in the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware. Local counsel can provide valuable insight into matters of local practice that can assist you in representing your client. Choose from available local counsel by choosing Local Counsel on this page.
Read Also: Can You File Irs Debt In Bankruptcy
Us Trustee Program Extends Telephonic Or Video Section 341 Meeting
Friday, August 28, 2020
The U.S. Trustee Program has extended the requirement that section 341 meetings be conducted by telephone or video appearance to all cases filed during the period of the Presidents Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak issued March 13, 2020, and ending on the date that is 60 days after such declaration terminates. However, the U.S. Trustee may approve a request by a trustee in a particular case to continue the section 341 meeting to an in-person meeting in a manner that complies with local public health guidance, if the U.S. Trustee determines that an in-person examination of the debtor is required to ensure the completeness of the meeting or the protection of estate property. This policy may be revised at the discretion of the Director of the United States Trustee Program.
Equal Access And Treatment
All persons involved in cases before the Court, including attorneys and parties, will have equal access to the Court, and the Court and its staff will treat each of those persons with equal respect and dignity, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other unique attribute.
If you have an experience that falls short of the Courts commitment above, please click below to learn how you may tell us and help the Court in its effort to ensure equal access and treatment for all.
Recommended Reading: How To Have Bankruptcy Removed From Credit Report
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Adopts Interim Modalities For Court Communication In Cross
After discussions among judges from several jurisdictions, including Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, England and Wales, Singapore, and the United States, at the initial meeting of the Judicial Insolvency Network in October 2016, the JIN developed Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation Between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters .
The stated purpose of the Guidelines is “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings and to enhance coordination and cooperation among courts under whose supervision such proceedings are being conducted.” Their overarching objective is to improve efficiency in complex cases, which ideally will minimize litigation, time, and expense for the benefit of all stakeholders.
The Guidelines are noteworthy not only because they provide a framework for cooperation and communication in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, but also because the initiative represents the first time that such a common framework has been adopted by courts for that purpose. Previously, communication between courts presiding over “parallel” cross-border bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings was often nonexistent or poorly coordinated, in many cases achieved by means of ad hoc protocols. This created significant delay and uncertainty and sometimes resulted in conflicting rulings from the courts involved.
Key features of the Modalities include:
Ustp Forms For The Filing Of Periodic Operating Reports In Non
Wednesday, July 21, 2021
On June 21, 2021, the United States Trustee Programs rule titled Procedures for Completing Uniform Periodic Reports in Non-Small Business Cases Filed Under Chapter 11 of Title 11, became effective. The Final Rule governs the filing of pre-confirmation monthly operating reports and quarterly post-confirmation reports by all debtors except those who are small business debtors or who, in accordance with the CARES Act, elect relief under subchapter V of chapter 11. To obtain the required MOR and PCR forms, instructions for completing and filing MOR and PCR forms, and other important information, please visit the United States Trustee Programs Chapter 11 Operating Reports resource page at www.justice.gov/ust/chapter-11-operating-reports.
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Records
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts
Search public court records from Delaware Bankruptcy Court online for free with easy to use case search tools for finding court cases and case summaries by case number, case name, party, attorney, judge, docket entry, and more. Filter cases further by date of filing, jurisdiction, case type, party type, and, party representation.
UniCourt gives you access to U.S. Bankruptcy Court Records across the State of Delaware, so you can search a range of different types of bankruptcy cases including Chapter 7, Chapter 9, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, Chapter 13, and Chapter 15. You can even drill down further and search for bankruptcy cases involving Adversary Proceedings, Debt Discharge Challenges, Debtor Discharge Challenges, Petitions, Revoked Confirmed Plans, and Other Proceedings. With UniCourt, you can lookup Bankruptcy Court cases online, find the latest docket information, view case summaries, check case statuses, download court documents, as well as track lawsuits and get alerts on new case updates.
Leverage UniCourts Legal Data as a Service to get bulk access to court data from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. We collect, organize, standardize, and normalize court data from courts throughout the federal court systems Public Access to Court Electronic Records and the state courts, and make it all easily accessible and useful through our web app and Legal Data APIs.
Judge Walrath Denies Motion To Transfer Venue Of Preference Action Notwithstanding Defendants Forum Selection Clause
In Judge Walraths RCS Creditor Trust v. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP opinion, the Court found that the presence of a forum selection clause was not enough to trump the bankruptcy courts ability to maintain venue for an avoidance action. In so finding, the judge agreed with the Trustee-Plaintiffs argument that the Debtors creditors were the ultimate parties-in-interest in the action, and thus were not bound by any FSC between the Debtors and Defendant . On that and other bases, the Court denied Defendants motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1412 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7087.
Background and the Twelve Factor Jumara Test
Plaintiff sought to recover approximately $580,000 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547 and 548. Defendant, a law firm, responded by filing the Motion.
Courts in the Third Circuit consider a variety of factors in deciding whether to grant a motion to transfer venue, including:
plaintiffs choice of forum,
defendants forum preference
whether the claim arose elsewhere,
location of books and records,
convenience of the parties based upon their relative physical and financial condition,
convenience of the witnesses
enforceability of the judgment,
practical considerations that would make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive,
congestion of the courts dockets,
public policies of the fora,
familiarity of the judge with the applicable state law, and
local interest in deciding local controversies at home.
Don’t Miss: Which Chapter Of Bankruptcy Is For Consumers
United States District Court
|U.S. District Court Clerk’s Office||302-573-6170|
|U.S. Bankruptcy Court Clerk’s Office||302-252-2900|
|PACER Support Center||800-676-6856|
|Delaware Help Line: Directory for Delaware State Courts and Government Agencies|
TRANSLATE:The above links use Google Translate, a free online language translation service. Computerized translations are only an approximation of the website’s original content.
Court Locations And Contact Information
|824 N. Market Street, 3rd Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801|
|Court’s Phone Number|
|Presumption of Abuse under 707|
|727OBJ||Objection to the Discharge of the Debtor|
|Chapter 15 Claims Procedure Order|
|CLAIMS||Claims have been docketed to this case|
|CLMSAGNT||Claims Agent Assigned to Case|
|CredAdd||Add the new address for this creditor to the creditor list|
|Financial Management Course Completion document has not been filed|
|A Direct Appeal has been filed|
|Opened from an eSR package|
|Funds Deposited in Court Registry|
|Do not redisplay case ineligible for auto close|
|IneligDisch||Do not redisplay case ineligible for auto discharge|
|INTCONF||Confirmed on an Interim Basis|
|Temporary Exclusions from Means Test for Reservist and National Guard|
|Do not allow Auto Discharge for this case|
|Opened from an eSR package|
|PRVDISCH||Debtor has been previously discharged|
|PRVDISCH/DB||First Debtor has been previously discharged|
|PRVDISCH/JDB||Joint Debtor has been previously discharged|
|PRVDISM||Debtor has been previously dismissed|
|REAF||Reaffirmation agreement hearing has been set for pro se debtor|
|ReafHdShp||Presumption of undue hardship in reaffirmation agreement|
You May Like: Do You Lose Your House In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Failed District Court Nomination Under George W Bush
On February 26, 2008, Connolly was nominated by to fill the seat vacated by in 2006, who was elevated to the . Although Connolly received a unanimously well qualified rating from the , the did not afford him a hearing and therefore his nomination to the federal bench expired at the conclusion of the Senate’s session in 2008. Senator returned his in support of Connolly, but then-Senator did not.
Judge Owens Issues First Avoidance Opinion In Rejecting Defendants Argument That Complaint Was Time
In Judge Owenss UMB Bank, N.A. v. Sun Capital Partners V, LP , 2020 WL 377015 opinion, the Court denied Defendants 12 motion to dismiss Plaintiff-Trustees attempt under section 544 to avoid and recover an alleged $42 million fraudulent transfer made to Defendants more than five years prior to the Petition Date. The opinion is the first one issued by Judge Owens that pertains to avoidance actions substantively, she found that because the Complaint alleged specific unsecured creditors of the applicable Debtor who could have avoided the Transfer as of the Petition Date, the motion to dismiss must be denied.
The Parties PositionsThe Transfer at issue in the Complaint occurred on December 20, 2011, with the Debtors filing for bankruptcy relief on January 17, 2017. The Complaint was then filed on January 17, 2019 , two years after the Petition Date and a little over seven years after the date of the Transfer.
Against that backdrop, the Court found that Plaintiff complied with section 546, as the Commencement Date of the adversary proceeding was two years after the Petition Date. While it was Plaintiffs burden to ultimately prove that a Predicate Creditor existed as of the Petition Date for 544 purposes, the Court found it premature to make such a ruling in addressing a timeliness defense contained in a motion to dismiss .
A copy of the Opinion can be found here.
Written by Daniel N. Brogan
A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Also Check: Telephone Number For Overstock Com
Stay Ahead Of The Curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
Telephonic Appearances And Requests
Telephonic appearances may be scheduled by contacting CourtCall and providing the Judges name, case name and number, hearing date and time, name, address and phone number of the participant, party of whom participant represents and matter on which the participant wishes to be heard. Participants are urged to make arrangements to appear telephonically at least one business day prior. For more information regarding telephonic appearance procedures and cost, please refer to General Information under Judges Info on the main page of the Courts website. Chambers will make every effort to respond to telephonic inquiries and requests within 24 hours. If Chambers does not respond within a reasonable time, a second inquiry or request is welcome.
Don’t Miss: How To Get Rid Of Student Loans In Bankruptcy
United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit
|United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
This circuit also hears appeals from the , which is an Article VI and not a district court under Article III of the Constitution.
The court is composed of 14 active judges and is based at the in , . The court also conducts sittings in other venues, including the . It is one of 13 . Due to the court’s appellate jurisdiction over , the court handles a significant number of influential commercial cases in the United States.
Citing Resources In The Web Archive
Citations should indicate: Archived in the Library of Congress Web Archives at www.loc.gov. When citing a particular website include the archived website’s Citation ID . Researchers are advised to follow standard citation guidelines for websites, pages, and articles. Researchers are reminded that many of the materials in this web archive are copyrighted and that citations must credit the authors/creators and publishers of the works. For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citing Primary Sources.
Judge Gross Grants Insiders Motion To Dismiss Chapter 7 Trustees Claims To Avoid Prepetition Setoffs
In Judge Grosss Miller v. D& M Holdings US Inc. opinion, the Court granted Defendants 12 motion to dismiss Plaintiff-Trustees attempt to avoid prepetition setoffs which accrued to Defendant, yet denied the Motion as it pertained to other non-setoff transfers. Notable in this case is the fact that Defendant is the Debtors parent company, thus rendering the transfers subject to the one-year lookback period attributable to insiders.
Background and Holding
The complaint sought avoidance of three buckets of transfers : Prepetition Setoffs Payroll Transfers and Expense Transfers. With respect to the Prepetition Setoffs, Defendant argued that a setoff governed by section 553 is not avoidable under section 547, while Plaintiff relied upon Pardo v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc. , 264 B.R. 344 in countering that setoffs can still be avoidable if they are found to be invalid or otherwise unavailable in bankruptcy. The Pardo court found that section 553 recognized setoffs where the creditor holds a prepetition claim against the debtor the creditor owes a prepetition debt to the debtor the claim and debt are mutual and the claim and debt are both valid and enforceable. That opinion further noted that section 553 protects an otherwise preferential setoff excluding any insufficiency.
A copy of the Opinion can be found here.
Scheduling And Hearing Procedures
1. Hearings are scheduled for one hour. If parties require more than one hour, scheduling arrangements must be made with Judge Dorseys chambers well in advance.
2. Hearings will conclude for the day not later than 4:45 p.m., subject to Judge Dorseys determination that it is necessary to continue. Parties should plan accordingly.
3. If parties intend to call witnesses at a hearing, they must file and submit their intention to do so at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The filing must contain the identity of each witness and the scope of testimony. All witnesses must appear in person. No testimony will be permitted by telephone.
4. Scheduled Trials will be removed from Judge Dorseys calendar unless the plaintiff or moving party advises Chambers two weeks in advance of the scheduled date in writing, docketed and submitted to Chambers, that it is going forward. This means that absent being advised by counsel as directed above that a trial will proceed, Judge Dorsey will assume the matter has been settled or is being adjourned.