(B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 20, 2017)

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over all orders previously entered in the case. The enforceability of these “retention of jurisdiction” provisions, however, will not rest on the plain language in the order but on the bankruptcy court’s statutory jurisdiction.

(S.D. Ind. June 2, 2017)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced that it will review the scope of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e)’s safe harbor provision. Section 546(e) protects from avoidance those transfers that are made “by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, except where there is actual fraud. The safe harbor is intended to ensure the stability of the securities market in the event of corporate restructurings.

As noted in a recent Distressing Matters post, the United States Supreme Court in In re Jevic Holding Corp. held that debtors cannot use structured dismissals to make payments to creditors in violation of ordinary bankruptcy distribution priority rules.

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)