(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)
(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
On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released draft reform legislation to Australia’s insolvency laws to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and help reduce the stigma associated with business failure.
The reforms, known as ‘safe-harbour’ provisions propose changes to directors’ personal liability for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Background
(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
(6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor’s claim for an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d). The real property was fully encumbered by secured claims and thus the debtor had no equity in the property. The court applies its prior decision in In re Baldridge. The trustee also argued that the debtor’s appeal was moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) and other authority but failed to meet the trustee’s burden on the issue. Opinion below.
Judge: Merritt
Attorney for Debtor: Gary Boren
The recent Federal Court of Australia decision of The Owners – Strata Plan No 14120 v McCarthy (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2017, demonstrates the dangers of errors in a bankruptcy notice.
In McCarthy, the Court found that when a debtor disputes the validity of a bankruptcy notice on the ground of a misstatement of the amount claimed, the debtor’s notice does not need to identify the misstatement with complete precision to render the bankruptcy notice invalid.