(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

(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. Feb. 13, 2017)

(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

(6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion to reopen the case. The debtor’s ex-spouse filed the motion four years after the debtor received his discharge. The ex-spouse argued that an obligation arising out of their divorce proceedings should be declared non-dischargeable. The court holds the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Attorney for creditor: Aaron J. Scheinfield

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court’s final order implementing the district court’s order directing turnover of assets to the bankruptcy estate was valid, because it resolved a core proceeding. The appellants contended that it was a non-core proceeding and thus required a district court order to be final. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Appellants: Jordan Law P.C., Terrence M Jordan

(U.S. Sup. Ct. June 13, 2016)

The Supreme Court holds that Puerto Rico is a “State” for purposes of Chapter 9’s pre-emption provision, despite the Code’s definition of “State” excluding Puerto Rico for purposes of defining who may be a debtor under Chapter 9. Thus, Puerto Rico cannot authorize its municipalities to seek relief under Chapter 9 nor enact its own municipal bankruptcy laws. The district court properly enjoined enforcement of the laws enacted by Puerto Rico in 2014, which enabled its public utilities to modify their debts. Opinion below.

(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

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2016)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the unopposed motion to withdraw the reference and the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice. The court discusses the standard for withdrawal motions, and finds that the standard is met here. The claims arise out of a contractual relationship outside the bankruptcy and would not be resolved through the claims resolution process. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not issue a final judgment in the matter absent the movant’s consent. Opinion below.