(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2017)
The court grants the debtor’s motion for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(1). The debtor had made 44 plan payments but was unable to make the 16 remaining payments. The court finds the recent change in the debtor’s economic circumstances warranted the relief requested. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)
Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost
Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)
On 28 March 2017 the Federal Government released for public consultation draft legislation (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 – Exposure Draft) that seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) by introducing:
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant lender’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted in the debtor’s complaint. The court first finds that the arbitration agreement is valid and that the claims are within its scope. The court then holds that, for certain claims, arbitration would conflict with the underlying purposes of the bankruptcy code. Thus, those claims remain with the bankruptcy court, while the other claims are to be arbitrated. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.
Judge: Barker
Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick
As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, Treasury has released an Exposure Draft Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 which seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to implement 2 key changes which are designed to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and
This case provides some useful guidance on some key aspects of oppression claims, and also illustrates that courts will be reluctant to wind up solvent companies, even where the parties are in deadlock and oppression has been established, in this case preferring to make buy out orders at a price to be determined.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this fraudulent and preferential transfer avoidance action. The trustee’s amended complaint failed to state claims based on certain transfers, but did state a preferential transfer claim.
Judge: Wise
Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Claude R.Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Alex S. Rodger
Attorneys for Defendant: Ross M. Bagley, Gideon Cashman, Eric M. Fishman, Adam R. Kegley