The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.
We are now past the second tranche of changes under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), comprised most importantly of Part 3 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) (containing the General Rules relating to external administrations) which came into effect on 1 September 2017.
Part 3 of the IPS will apply to external administrations that start on or after 1 September 2017.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)
The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC
Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General
- On 18 September 2017 the Treasury Law Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act) became law.
- The Safe Harbour reforms introduced in the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency processes.
Division 65 and the New Strict Liability Regime
As part of the significant reforms to insolvency and bankruptcy laws introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (ILRA), parliament has sought to condense and simplify the requirement for external administrators to avoid conflicts of interest.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 7, 2017)
The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, granting a discharge in her bankruptcy case. The U.S. Trustee brought the action under § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), alleging the debtor intentionally failed to disclose $5,000 she held in a lockbox on the petition date. The Court finds the debtor did not have the requisite intent and was unsure of what she was supposed to do at the 341 meeting based on a misunderstanding or miscommunication with her lawyer. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.
Judge: Fulton
Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer
Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer