(E.D. Ky. June 7, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.
Judge: Lorch
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s claim. The court determines that the creditor failed to establish that the transaction with the debtors was intended as a loan. Instead, the parties had formed a partnership with the creditor making capital contributions, rather than loans. 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.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.
(6th Cir. July 18, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order modifying its prior sale order under Rule 60(b). The court’s original order approved a sale of estate assets but the sale agreement and the order failed to include certain contracts to be assumed and assigned to the buyer. The court finds that modification of the order was appropriate because the motion to modify the order was filed within one year of entry of the sale order and the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion after weighing the relevant factors. Opinion below.
(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)
(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)
The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.
Judge: Easterbrook
Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer
Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2017)
The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff trustee. The trustee sought to obtain title to a truck sold to the debtor prepetition by the defendant dealer. The dealer had not provided a certificate of title, but the debtor did receive physical possession of the truck pursuant to a bona fide sale. The court finds in favor of the trustee after applying Kentucky’s comprehensive automated motor vehicle registration and titling system contained in KRS §§ 186A.010-186A.990. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf