(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)
The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
(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
(N.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay to permit the creditor to proceed with the real property foreclosure action. The debtor failed to provide factual or legal support for his claims of fraud by the creditor. Opinion below.
Judge: Miller
Plaintiff: Pro Se
Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jordan S. Huttenlocker, Louis S. Chronowski
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(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
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 27, 2016)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The creditor conceded that the debt was based on a breach of contract claim. However, the creditor alleged the debt was converted to a non-dischargeable debt based on the debtor’s post-judgment efforts to avoid collection. The court finds that the creditor failed to state a claim in part because the alleged behavior did not result in the debt sought to be declared non-dischargeable. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)