(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2016)
The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this adversary proceeding arising from a transaction involving the sale of a restaurant and associated assets. The court finds that rights in the purchase agreement were effectively assigned to the plaintiff, and the purchase agreement should be reformed to reflect the proper selling party. Further, the court finds that various defendants are liable to the plaintiff on breach of warranty, conversion, and other claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Lorch
(6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion to reopen the case. The debtor’s ex-spouse filed the motion four years after the debtor received his discharge. The ex-spouse argued that an obligation arising out of their divorce proceedings should be declared non-dischargeable. The court holds the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Opinion below.
Per Curiam
Attorney for creditor: Aaron J. Scheinfield
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2016)
(6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the pensioners’ challenge to the confirmation order entered in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case filed by the City of Detroit, Michigan. The pensioners filed the action to challenge the plan’s reduction of their benefits. The Court holds that the doctrine of equitable mootness applies. The pensioners did not obtain a stay, the plan has been substantially consummated, and many actions have been undertaken or completed under the plan. Opinion below.
Judge: Batchelder
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2016)
September 2016
Commercial Litigation
Can a conflicting email and attachment regarding settlement amount to an acceptance, or does it constitute a counter offer?
Summary
In an appeal from the County Court, regarding the forfeiture of a lease, the High Court confirmed that a purported acceptance of a settlement offer was actually a counter offer. In suggesting an alternative payment date, the company had made a counter offer which the other party had not accepted.
Background
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Sep. 30, 2016)
The case of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v (1) Gary John Fielding (2) Sally Anne Fielding [2016] determined whether a claim in respect of breach of duty against two directors of Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited (Burnden) was time-barred. The alleged breach of duty was in connection with a distribution in specie. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and held that section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applied so that the claim was not subject to the usual period of limitation.
(7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2016)