Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Vivaro Corporation
Case Number:
1:12-bk-13810
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Firms
- Arnall Golden
- Ashby & Geddes
- Belkin Burden
- Blank Rome
- Bragar Eagel
- Buchalter APC
- Certilman Balin
- Cleary Gottlieb
- Conley Rosenberg
- Cozen O'Connor
- Garfunkel Wild
- Haynes & Boone
- Herrick Feinstein
- Jones Day
- Kobre & Kim
- LaMonica Herbst
- Leech Tishman
- Linebarger Goggan
- McGuireWoods
- McManimon Scotland
- Miles & Stockbridge
- Montgomery McCracken
- Norton Rose
- Pick & Zabicki
- Rabinowitz Lubetkin
- Rivkin Radler
- Rosenberg & Estis
- Sills Cummis
- Tarter Krinsky
- Vedder Price
- Weston Hurd
- Wuersch & Gering
Companies
- Epiq Systems Inc.
- International Business Machines Corp.
- Level 3 Communications Inc.
- Oracle Corp.
- Tata Communications Limited
- T-Mobile US Inc.
- Universal Service Administrative Co.
- Verizon Communications Inc.
Government Agencies
- Missouri Department of Revenue
- New Jersey Division of Taxation
- Tennessee Department of Revenue
- Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 14, 2017
Mexican Mobile Co. Fights For $6M Claim Against Vivaro
Mexican telecommunications provider Telcel urged a New York bankruptcy court on Monday to overrule an objection to its claim for $6 million against defunct calling card maker Vivaro Corp., saying it has produced sufficient documentation showing Vivaro's liability stemming from a contract over interconnection payments.
-
May 05, 2015
Vivaro Judge Doubts Opponents Of $8M Leucadia Deal
A New York bankruptcy judge seemed skeptical Tuesday of a group of unsecured creditors and former insiders of defunct calling card maker Vivaro Corp. who are objecting to a proposed $8 million settlement with Leucadia National Corp. because the opponents are likely targets of future clawback claims.
-
April 29, 2015
Unsecured Vivaro Creditors Fight $8M Leucadia Deal
Unsecured creditors of defunct calling card maker Vivaro Corp. urged a New York bankruptcy judge Tuesday to block an $8 million settlement the official creditors committee reached with Leucadia National Corp., suggesting Leucadia got a "sweetheart deal" because it was previously represented by the committee's firm, Arent Fox LLP.
-
February 04, 2015
Vivaro Ch. 11 Judge Trims $50M Leucadia Clawback Suit
Unsecured creditors of defunct calling card maker Vivaro Corp. can keep chasing $27 million that Leucadia National Corp. received in 2007 from an allegedly insolvent Vivaro unit, a New York bankruptcy judge ruled Tuesday while axing the balance of a $50 million fraudulent transfer case.
-
January 30, 2013
Distributor Returns Fire As Battle With Vivaro Heats Up
Distributor Raza Communication Inc. on Friday fired back at accusations from bankrupt international calling card maker Vivaro Corp. that it owes back payments, accusing Vivaro of actually causing Raza $3.4 million in losses after taking its business to other distributors.
-
January 29, 2013
CORRECTED: Vivaro Sues Distributor For $1.1M Over Missed Payments
International calling card maker Vivaro Corp. and related debtors filed an adversary proceeding in New York bankruptcy court Nov. 5, arguing that distributor Raza Communication Inc. and its principal owe them $1.1 million for failing to pay outstanding accounts receivable. (A previously published version of this article incorrectly said the suit was seeking $7 million in missed payments. It is only seeking $1.1 million. The error has been corrected.)