The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with the exception of one claim for equitable subordination against one of the defendants. The complaint filed by the trustee asserted counts for veil piercing, fraud and fraudulent transfer, preference avoidance, breach of fiduciary duty, and a demand for accounting and turnover. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Trustee: Mark A. Warsco

Attorneys for Defendants: Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, Michael J. Alerding, Julia E. Dimick, Mitchell Alan Greene, Anthony Frederick Roach; Abraham Murphy

(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer

Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy

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

The bankruptcy court grants the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief because it was inadequately protected as a result of there being insufficient funds to make the first payment to the creditor under the confirmed Chapter 12 plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Atttorneys for the Debtor: Kaplan & Partners LLP, James Edwin McGhee, III, Charity Bird Neukomm

Attorneys for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox

(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

(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

作为2016年整个航运界最震憾的事件，世界第七大集装箱航运商韩国韩进海运的破产案件最进又有了新进展。据外媒报道，在经历了近半年的重整努力后，2017年2月17日，韩国首尔中区法院正式裁定韩进海运破产。至此，这起航运史上最大的破产案件终于尘埃落定。据悉，韩进海运大部分的资产已经被拍卖用于偿债。

韩进海运在2016年9月进入重整程序后采取了哪些自救措施？这桩全球航运业有史以来最大的破产案涉及哪些航运企业跨境破产法律问题？我们将在下文逐一分析。

特殊的运营模式对航运企业的保护作用

为规避法律风险，现代航运企业多采取单船公司结构，单船公司之间彼此互不隶属。另外，除购买外，航运企业多采取租赁方式扩大商船运力。据报道，在韩进海运的全部运力中，仅有不足10%是由其自有船舶完成的。换言之，我们看到的航行在大洋上的、涂有HanJin Shipping字样的船舶里超过90%其实并不是韩进海运公司的财产。