(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2016)
Following trial, the bankruptcy court excepts from discharge a debt arising from a loan, but holds the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with respect to other debts. The court also finds that a lien was not created where there was no proof of an actual levy, but a seperate judgment lien is held valid. The court denies the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. Opinion below.
Judge: Stout
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas, Arvin & Adams, James G. Adams, III, David E. Arvin
Just about every year changes are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The revisions address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.
The In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case in New Hampshire has produced yet another important decision involving trademarks and Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. This time the decision is from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”). Although the BAP’s Section 365(n) discussion is interesting, even more significant is its holding on the impact of rejection of a trademark license.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.
The Sixth Circuit affirms the 2015 consent order specifying the manner in which certain provisions of the confirmed Chapter 11 plan would apply to a class of claim holders. The Korean Claimants objected, arguing that the district court lacked authority to enter the consent order and that the consent order was an impermissible modification of the distribution agreement. The court holds that the court had the requisite authority to enter the consent order and it merely clarified the distribution agreement rather than modified it. Opinion below.
Judge: Kethledge
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016)
(S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s holding that a tax penalty is dischargeable if the penalty is described by either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(A) or (B). Opinion below.
Judge: McKinney
Attorney for Appellant: Peter Sklarew
Attorneys for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, PC, Julie A. Camden
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 11, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the trustee in this declaratory judgment action, in which the plaintiff sought a judgment that certain health insurance proceeds were not property of the estate. The plaintiff argued that the debtor had assigned the proceeds to it prior to the bankruptcy, but the court holds that the evidence presented did not establish such assignment. The debtor’s spouse had signed the document for him, but the debtor’s spouse did not have the requisite agency authority to do so. Opinion below.
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)