Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagesattorneymotionbankruptcychapter 11 bankruptcy
damagesattorneymotionbankruptcy

Related Cases

Li v. Keisler
View Case »
Sembhi v. Sessions
View Case »
Benslimane v. Gonzales
View Case »
Najmabadi v. Holder
View Case »
Sodhi v. Maricopa County Special Health Care Dist.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Balsillie, Matter of

Facts

In September 2006, the Moyes Parties became the controlling owners of the Coyotes and entered into agreements with the NHL that included a Consent Agreement and a Guaranty. By 2008, the Coyotes were facing severe financial difficulties, leading the Moyes Parties to seek a buyer and file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During this time, they engaged in negotiations to sell the team to James Balsillie, which the NHL opposed due to relocation concerns. The NHL later submitted bids to purchase the Coyotes, which were initially rejected by the bankruptcy court.

In September 2006, the Moyes Parties became the controlling owners of the Coyotes and entered into agreements with the NHL that included a Consent Agreement and a Guaranty.

Issue

The main legal issues include whether the NHL can recover attorney's fees and damages from the Moyes Parties and the applicability of bankruptcy preemption to the NHL's claims.

The main legal issues include whether the NHL can recover attorney's fees and damages from the Moyes Parties and the applicability of bankruptcy preemption to the NHL's claims.

Rule

The bankruptcy preemption doctrine precludes certain claims, including those for attorney's fees incurred prior to a specific date, and requires that claims be evaluated under the terms of the agreements between the parties.

The bankruptcy preemption doctrine precludes certain claims, including those for attorney's fees incurred prior to a specific date, and requires that claims be evaluated under the terms of the agreements between the parties.

Analysis

The court analyzed the bankruptcy court's recommendations and determined that the NHL's claims for attorney's fees incurred before November 2, 2009, were barred by judicial estoppel and bankruptcy preemption. The court also found that the NHL's claims for post-acquisition losses were not recoverable as they were not foreseeable at the time the contracts were made.

The court analyzed the bankruptcy court's recommendations and determined that the NHL's claims for attorney's fees incurred before November 2, 2009, were barred by judicial estoppel and bankruptcy preemption.

Conclusion

The court accepted the bankruptcy court's recommendations in part, granting some motions and denying others, particularly regarding the NHL's claims for attorney's fees and damages.

The court accepted the bankruptcy court's recommendations in part, granting some motions and denying others, particularly regarding the NHL's claims for attorney's fees and damages.

Who won?

The Moyes Parties prevailed in part, as the court upheld the bankruptcy court's recommendations that limited the NHL's recovery on several claims.

The Moyes Parties prevailed in part, as the court upheld the bankruptcy court's recommendations that limited the NHL's recovery on several claims.

You must be