Earlier this month, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware Bankruptcy Court”) released an update to the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Delaware (Effective February 1, 2017) (the “Local Rules”). According to Local Rule 1001-1(e), the 2017 version of the Local Rules governs all cases or proceedings filed after February 1, 2017, and also applies to proceedings pending on the effective date, except to the extent that the Court finds that it would not be feasible or would work an injustice.

In the recent decision ofSpizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.), 2017 WL 75750 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff trustee. The trustee sought to obtain title to a truck sold to the debtor prepetition by the defendant dealer. The dealer had not provided a certificate of title, but the debtor did receive physical possession of the truck pursuant to a bona fide sale. The court finds in favor of the trustee after applying Kentucky’s comprehensive automated motor vehicle registration and titling system contained in KRS §§ 186A.010-186A.990. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s request for default rate interest on the secured claim. The value of the real property securing the claim was in excess of the claim amount. Case law establishes that there is a presumption in favor of the contractual rate of interest, but it is subject to rebuttal when evidence establishes the default rate is significantly higher without justification. Here, the default rate doubled the non-default rate and the court finds there was no justification under the evidence presented. Opinion below.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the nondischargeability action. Collateral estoppel prevented the debtor from defending against the claim that the debt arose from fraud and a willful and malicious injury. A Tennessee state court had entered a default judgment against the debtor that included specific factual findings that established a claim for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2017)

The bankruptcy court makes additional findings of fact following the appeal and remand. The court’s original judgment stands, as the court concludes again that the plaintiff failed to prove that the debtor should have known of the fraud committed with his accounts. Opinion below

Prior opinion summary: click here

Judge: Carr

(7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017)

What is “redemption” in bankruptcy?

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, dismissing claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and § 727(a)(2)(A). The plaintiff argued that the debtor executed a scheme that intentionally injured the plaintiff because the debtor became unable to pay on promissory notes. The Court finds that the plaintiff did not establish that the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 17, 2017)