(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn

“We’re riding down the boulevard,
We’re riding through the dark night,
With half the tank and empty heart,
Pretending we’re in love, when it’s never enough, nah.”

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that Seven Counties Services, Inc. was permitted to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief because it was not a “governmental unit” as defined in the bankruptcy code. Further, the debtor’s contract with KERS was properly deemed an executory contract that could be rejected by the debtor. The court makes one factual correction to the record, but the bankruptcy court’s decision is affirmed in all other respects. Opinion below.

Judge: Hale

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ nondischargeability complaint. The plaintiffs had suffered a loss when they purchased a condominium unit and hired a builder to complete its construction. The builder accepted funds but failed to complete the work. Each of the plaintiffs’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523 were properly dismissed, principally because they failed to establish that the builder was the debtors’ agent. Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016)

In MERV Properties, L.L.C. v. Forcht Bancorp., Inc. 2015 WL 5827775, 61 BCD 170 (Bankr. 6th Cir. 2015), the 6th U.S. Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in favor of defendant bank on plaintiff borrower’s fraud and collusion claims.

On remand by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Federal District Court of Massachusetts found Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Sun Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP (“Sun Fund IV, and together with Sun Fund III, the “Sun Funds”) liable for the withdrawal liability of Scott Brass, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that constructive fraudulent conveyance claims arising under state law are preempted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (Code), where the transfers were made by or to financial intermediaries effectuating settlement payments in securities transactions or made in connection with a securities contract, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is a debtor in possession, bankruptcy trustee or other creditors’ representative.

A corporation’s asset sale “was structured [by its insiders] so as to fraudulently transfer assets in order to avoid paying [a major creditor] what it was owed,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 22, 2016. Continental Casualty Co. v. Symons, 2016 WL 1118566, at *6 (7th Cir., March 22, 2016).