(7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court and holds that certain funds held by the debtor were held in trust for the appellant and other creditors in the same customer class. The funds therefore were not property of the estate that should be distributed pro rata to all creditors. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Appellant: Foley & Lardner LLP, Stephen Bedell, Robert Seth Bressler, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff, Thomas P. Krebs, William J. McKenna, Jr.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the U.S. Trustee’s motion to enter an order for sanctions and requiring disgorgement of fees. The attorney had provided advice to the debtor about the petition and schedules that the debtor had drafted. The attorney was not aware that a bankruptcy was filed until he received the U.S. Trustee’s motion. The court declines to grant the relief requested under these circumstances. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 28, 2017)

A recent case in New York State Supreme Court, One Williams Street Capital Management LP v. U.S. Education Loan Trust IV, LLC (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 15, 2015), affords a useful opportunity to review the applicability and scope of §13-107 of the New York General Obligations Law, which provides that a transfer of a bond “vests in the transferee all claims or demands of the transferrer.” The court observed that §13-107 extends to all claims, whether in contract or in tort, including fraud.

Indentures and other agreements governing complex, multitiered structured debt products will typically contain a series of reserves, the adequacy of whose funding will take precedence over payments to noteholders. While the funding requirements of the reserve accounts will be set forth in the agreement, the formulation of these provisions will leave administrators considerable leeway in determining the cash maintenance levels appropriate for the various accounts. In a recent case, UMB National Association v. Airplanes Limited (S.D.N.Y.

Unlike an opinion, an order of the court is often not from the pen of the judge. Typically, a court order is submitted to the judge after negotiation among the parties. So, when a disagreement arises among the parties regarding the interpretation of the court’s order, how does the judge who signed the order go about resolving the matter? The issue came up not long ago in Outer Harbor Terminal LLC (Bkr. D. Del. May, 5, 2017), in which Judge Laurie Silverstein of the District of  Delaware bankruptcy court was confronted with a dispute over her own final DIP order.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint seeking to avoid a transfer to the bank defendant. The transfer consisted of the Bank exercising its contractual setoff right and applying funds in the debtor’s bank account to the Bank’s claim. The transfer occurred while the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The debtor fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

(6th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order modifying its prior sale order under Rule 60(b). The court’s original order approved a sale of estate assets but the sale agreement and the order failed to include certain contracts to be assumed and assigned to the buyer. The court finds that modification of the order was appropriate because the motion to modify the order was filed within one year of entry of the sale order and the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion after weighing the relevant factors. Opinion below.