Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2017)
The court grants the debtor’s motion for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(1). The debtor had made 44 plan payments but was unable to make the 16 remaining payments. The court finds the recent change in the debtor’s economic circumstances warranted the relief requested. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)
Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost
Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)
Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant lender’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted in the debtor’s complaint. The court first finds that the arbitration agreement is valid and that the claims are within its scope. The court then holds that, for certain claims, arbitration would conflict with the underlying purposes of the bankruptcy code. Thus, those claims remain with the bankruptcy court, while the other claims are to be arbitrated. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.
Judge: Barker
Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick
In the recent decision of In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), Judge Sontchi held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to counsel to the creditors committee in a case with a confirmed chapter 11 plan.
In a 33 page decision released March 29, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on competing motions to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in an adversary proceeding in the Affirmative Insurance bankruptcy – Adversary Proceeding Case No. 16-50425.