(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant lender’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted in the debtor’s complaint. The court first finds that the arbitration agreement is valid and that the claims are within its scope. The court then holds that, for certain claims, arbitration would conflict with the underlying purposes of the bankruptcy code. Thus, those claims remain with the bankruptcy court, while the other claims are to be arbitrated. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Barker

Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick

The Court of Florence (November 2, 2016) confirmed that the debtor can retain part of his assets, with a view to support the company’s recovery and in derogation to principles of liability of the debtor.

The case

A company applied for concordato preventivo, based on a plan providing for, on one side, the sale of those assets not functional to the business and, on the other side, the company to continue to trade retaining those other assets which were needed for the activities to be carried on.

A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors

The case

Two companies having an indebtedness mainly towards banks and leasing companies, jointly submitted to the Court a request for confirmation of a debt restructuring agreement providing for a two-year moratorium of payment of principal and a restructuring of interests.

The Court of Cassation (decision No. 4915 of 27 February 2017) lowered the threshold allowing the Bankruptcy Court to review the feasibility of the concordato preventivo proposal.

The case

(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

(6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor’s claim for an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d). The real property was fully encumbered by secured claims and thus the debtor had no equity in the property. The court applies its prior decision in In re Baldridge. The trustee also argued that the debtor’s appeal was moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) and other authority but failed to meet the trustee’s burden on the issue. Opinion below.

Judge: Merritt

Attorney for Debtor: Gary Boren

The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with the exception of one claim for equitable subordination against one of the defendants. The complaint filed by the trustee asserted counts for veil piercing, fraud and fraudulent transfer, preference avoidance, breach of fiduciary duty, and a demand for accounting and turnover. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Trustee: Mark A. Warsco

Attorneys for Defendants: Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, Michael J. Alerding, Julia E. Dimick, Mitchell Alan Greene, Anthony Frederick Roach; Abraham Murphy

(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer

Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy