(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 29, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this adversary proceeding. The trustee sought to subordinate and recharacterize defendants’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 510, avoid as fraudulent and preferential transfers certain transfers to the defendants, and disallow defendants’ claims. The court finds that the trustee fails to allege facts sufficient to support any of the claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(S.D. Ind. June 27, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. June 26, 2017)
The bankruptcy court dismisses without prejudice the debtor’s complaint against a foreclosing creditor because the court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The debtor filed the complaint alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of the automatic stay. However, the alleged acts occurred at a time when the subject property was no longer property of the estate. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Debtor: Sabin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sabin
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 20, 2017)
The introduction of business rescue proceedings by Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) created uncertainty on various levels, in particular the extent and nature of certain rights previously enjoyed by creditors.
Our courts are making progress in finding a path through the muddy waters in this regard and every day a judgment is delivered that sheds some light on previous uncertain propositions.
(S.D. Ind. June 2, 2017)
In the case of First Rand Bank Limited v KJ Foods CC (in business rescue) (734/2015) [2015] ZA SCA 50 (26 April 2017), the main issue that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had to determine was whether the High Court of Pretoria (Court a quo) was correct in setting aside a vote by the appellant, FirstRand Bank Limited (FNB), against the adoption of a business rescue plan (plan) on the basis that it was reasonable and just to do so in terms of s153(7) of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act).
(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)