BGI Sewell, LLC
| BGI Sewell, LLC |
| U.S. Trustee |
| 1:2025bk12235 |
| March 4, 2025 |
| U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 4, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Application For Retention of Professional Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP as Counsel to Debtor in Possession Filed by Edmond M. George on behalf of BGI Sewell, LLC. Objections due by 3/25/2025. (Attachments: #1 Certification of E. George #2 Proposed Order #3 Certificate of Service) (George, Edmond) |
| Filing 1 Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition Filed by Edmond M. George on behalf of BGI Sewell, LLC. Chapter 11 Plan Subchapter V Due by 06/2/2025. (George, Edmond) |
| Receipt of filing fee for Voluntary Petition (Chapter 11)(# 25-12235) [misc,volp11a] (1738.00) Filing Fee. Receipt number A47873602, fee amount $ 1738.00. (re: Doc#1) (U.S. Treasury) |
| Search for this case: BGI Sewell, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Debtor: BGI Sewell, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Edmond M. George |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| U.s. trustee: U.S. Trustee | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
