(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

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies confirmation of the debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 plan. The court first determines that the debtors’ timber operations constitute a “farming operation” under § 101(21). Those operations are ongoing rather than a single cut of all timber at one time. The debtors are eligible to proceed under Chapter 12. However, the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed plan was feasible. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

(6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)

No passado dia 1 de julho de 2017 entrou em vigor o Decreto-lei 79/2017 de 30 de junho de 2017 (“DL 79/2017”), que altera, entre outros, o Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas, alterando, nomeadamente, o regime jurídico do Procedimento Especial de Revitalização (“PER”) que fica agora reservado a empresas.

Destacamos ainda outras alterações relevantes introduzidas pelo DL 79/2017: 

On 1 July 2017, Decree-law 79/2017, of 30 June 2017 (“DL 79/2017”), entered into force. This piece of legislation amends, most notably, the Insolvency and Recovery of Companies Code and the legal framework of the Special Revitalization Procedure (“SRP”), which is now reserved only to companies.

Other noteworthy amendments introduced by DL 79/2017 are as follows:

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 16, 2017)

(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.