(6th Cir. B.A.P. Sep. 30, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. September 14, 2016)

(7^th Cir. Sept. 14, 2016)

(7th Cir. June 10, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the bankruptcy court applied too narrow of a baseline payment range to the creditor’s ordinary course defense in this preference action. While this court agreed that there were a few payments outside the ordinary course, the new value defense applied to completely offset those payments. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Appellant: Nixon Peabody LLP, Richard Scott Alsterda, Theodore Eric Harman

Attorneys for Appellee: Clark Hill PLC, Pamela Joy Leichtling, Scott N. Schreiber

(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz

Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms

(7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 16, 2016)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision holding that the debtor was collaterally estopped from challenging the amount of the mortgage lender’s claim. The lender had obtained judgment in a prepetition state court foreclosure action, in which the debtor had presented the same arguments regarding the loan balance calculation. The district court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies and the claim amount could not be re-litigated in the bankruptcy. Opinion below.

(6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s finding that the Chapter 11 plan was proposed in bad faith. The plan proposed to pay small claims in full but over a 60-day period. This class of claims was technically impaired due to the delayed payment and it voted to accept the plan. The principle secured lender appealed. The Court finds that the plan was not proposed in good faith, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3), because it was designed to circumvent  § 1129(a)(10)’s requirement for an accepting impaired class of claims. Opinion below.