(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 9, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the creditor in this adversary proceeding in which the debtor alleged violations of the automatic stay and claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The court holds that the creditor bank’s restriction of the debtor’s electronic privileges with respect to her accounts did not violate the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Ross Benjamin Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Christopher M. Hill

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the debtor’s counterclaim in this nondischargeability action. The debtor failed to state a claim for conversion under Kentucky law. The debtor also failed to state claims under Kentucky’s statutes governing corporations, derivative actions, and shareholder claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Stuart P. Brown

Attorney for Creditor: Michael L. Baker

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS “Gagging orders”: an office holder’s secret weapon December 2016 Introduction Practitioners are fully aware of the extensive powers available under ss 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allowing administrators and liquidators as office holders (OHs) to require individuals and organisations to disgorge information.

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff argued that a state court judgment collaterally estopped the debtor from defending against the claims. The court holds that the findings in the state court judgment are insufficient to prevent the debtor from asserting a defense in this action. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Mulvey Law LLC, Joseph L. Mulvey

(6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to confirm the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, which included payment of overdue property taxes under Tennessee law with an interest rate of 12%. The state argued that the interest rate should be 18% due to the additional 6% interest permitted under the applicable state statute for a default penalty. The court holds that the 12% provided in the “nonbankruptcy law” is applicable, while the 6% penalty is not applicable. Opinion below.

Judge: Stranch

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff trust. The bankruptcy court held that the trust could pierce the corporate veil and hold the debtor personally liable to the trust. The district court analyzes Indiana law on veil piercing and finds no error. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorney for Debtor: Goering Law LLC, Wilmer E. Goering, II

Attorney for Plaintiff: Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP, David E. Wright

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2017)

Welcome to the February 2017 edition of our wealth and trusts quarterly digest. The digest provides up to date commentary and analysis on key sector developments. Our tax, wealth and trusts teams are able to provide a wide ranging service to assist you and your clients in responding to market trends and legal developments. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any concerns you may have and always welcome feedback on the content of our publications. Feature When can trustees exercise their right of retention?