(7th Cir. Feb. 8, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit denies the trustee’s motion to dismiss his appeal and remand so that the bankruptcy court could approve the settlement between the parties, as the bankruptcy court recently indicated that it would approve the settlement. The court denies the motion because Appellate Procedure Rule 12.1 requires that the district court indicate that it would grant the same relief as the bankruptcy court. Opinion below.

Judge: Ripple

Attorneys for Trustee: Riordan, Fulkerson, Hupert & Coleman, Alan Fulkerson

(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)

A federal district court recently rejected the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s attempt to hold a buyer of assets liable for the seller’s unfunded defined benefit plan liabilities under a successor liability theory.[1] While the court decided the issue in favor of the buyer, it is a cautionary tale for buyers as it appears to be the first time the PBGC has argued for the application of successor liability in this context and is a depar

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)

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the right of a holder of an indenture security to receive principal and interest payments, or to institute suit to enforce such payments after they become due, shall not be impaired or affected without such holder’s consent. Market participants had long viewed Section 316(b) of the TIA as a “boilerplate” provision, contained or incorporated by reference in most high yield indentures, that protected only a bondholder’s right to bring suit to enforce payment obligations.