(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.
Judge: Wilhoit
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)
The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the lender, holding the debt owed by one of the debtors would not be discharged, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The debtor disregarded the lender’s security interest in his business’s inventory, using the proceeds of the inventory for personal expenses in violation of the security agreement. The court holds that the lender failed to present sufficient evidence to except the other debtor’s (the first debtor’s spouse) debt from discharge. Opinion below.
Judge: Stout
(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this fraudulent and preferential transfer avoidance action. The trustee’s amended complaint failed to state claims based on certain transfers, but did state a preferential transfer claim.
Judge: Wise
Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Claude R.Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Alex S. Rodger
Attorneys for Defendant: Ross M. Bagley, Gideon Cashman, Eric M. Fishman, Adam R. Kegley
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2017)
The bankruptcy court makes additional findings of fact following the appeal and remand. The court’s original judgment stands, as the court concludes again that the plaintiff failed to prove that the debtor should have known of the fraud committed with his accounts. Opinion below
Prior opinion summary: click here
Judge: Carr
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2016)
(7th Cir. July 28, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.
Judge: Moberly
(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)