(7th Cir. July 27, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order finding that the debtor’s prepetition transfer of a farm to the defendant was a fraudulent transfer subject to avoidance. The debtor transferred the farm in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to abandon litigation he had brought against the debtor. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the farm. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Defendant: Pro Se

Attorney for Trustee: Brenda L. Zeddun

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through - Ship Finance: Updates and Trends and is reproduced with permission.

The terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably dictate the extent to which Brexit impacts upon financial agreements. As this stage, it is important to consider the clauses which may have to be reviewed.

Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.

When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:

In the recent case of Greece v Stroumpoulis on 25 February 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that EU protections under the Insolvency Directive apply to EU residents working in the EU, regardless of whether their employer is an EU company. The ECJ reached this decision based on the social objective of the Insolvency Directive, irrespective of the maritime waters on which the vessel sailed.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 8, 2016)

The court overrules the debtor’s ex-spouse’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued her claim could not be discharged because it was a domestic support obligation. However, the court analyzes the divorce decree and determines that the payments ordered were not tied to health or employment prospects or the creditor’s ability to support herself. Under the circumstances, the court concludes the claim is not for a domestic support obligation and may be discharged. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016)

(E.D. Ky. Bankr. June 24, 2016)

In this Chapter 13, the bankruptcy court rules on the objection to confirmation and finds that the creditor’s expert’s valuation of the debtor’s mobile home was more reliable than the valuations provided by the debtor’s experts. The creditor’s expert testimony was not hearsay, as it was reasonable for the expert to rely on information about the particular mobile home model provided by the manufacturer. The debtor’s experts failed to obtain knowledge of the particular model before determining their values. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court applies Kentucky’s borrowing statute, KRS § 413.320, to determine the applicable statute of limitations for the debtor’s defamation, breach of contract, and fraud claims. The court analyzes where each claim accrued and dismisses some but not all of the debtor’s claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Dann Law Firm, Brian D. Flick

Attorney for Defendants: Christopher M. Hill, John R. Wirthlin, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess, Stephanie Smiley