One of the prerequisites to confirmation of any chapter 11 plan is that at least one “impaired” class of creditors must vote in favor of the plan. This requirement reflects the basic (but not universally accepted) principle that a plan may not be imposed on a dissident body of stakeholders of which no class has given approval. However, it is sometimes an invitation to creative machinations designed to muster the requisite votes for confirmation of the plan.

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn

“We’re riding down the boulevard,
We’re riding through the dark night,
With half the tank and empty heart,
Pretending we’re in love, when it’s never enough, nah.”

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that Seven Counties Services, Inc. was permitted to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief because it was not a “governmental unit” as defined in the bankruptcy code. Further, the debtor’s contract with KERS was properly deemed an executory contract that could be rejected by the debtor. The court makes one factual correction to the record, but the bankruptcy court’s decision is affirmed in all other respects. Opinion below.

Judge: Hale

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ nondischargeability complaint. The plaintiffs had suffered a loss when they purchased a condominium unit and hired a builder to complete its construction. The builder accepted funds but failed to complete the work. Each of the plaintiffs’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523 were properly dismissed, principally because they failed to establish that the builder was the debtors’ agent. Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016)

The crash in oil prices has reverberated throughout the industry and is widely expected to lead to a wave of bankruptcies among oil and gas producers (particularly the small to midsize companies that have played a major role in the boom in shale production in North America). Less well recognized, until recently, is the prospect that these producer bankruptcies may soon affect oil pipeline companies that built new infrastructure, relying on long-term ship-or-pay contracts with the producers.

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code acts as the Bankruptcy Code’s equitable backstop, empowering bankruptcy courts to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out [its] provisions” and to, “sua sponte, take[e] any action or mak[e] any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.” Does section 105(a), though, authorize