(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part the debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien on two parcels of real property. Applying the formula in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the court determines that the debtor’s exemption is impaired with respect to one parcel but not the other. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Michael B. Baker, James R. Westenhoefer

Attorneys for Creditor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Sara A. Johnston

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC

Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

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

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 7, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, granting a discharge in her bankruptcy case. The U.S. Trustee brought the action under § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), alleging the debtor intentionally failed to disclose $5,000 she held in a lockbox on the petition date. The Court finds the debtor did not have the requisite intent and was unsure of what she was supposed to do at the 341 meeting based on a misunderstanding or miscommunication with her lawyer. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.