(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s request for default rate interest on the secured claim. The value of the real property securing the claim was in excess of the claim amount. Case law establishes that there is a presumption in favor of the contractual rate of interest, but it is subject to rebuttal when evidence establishes the default rate is significantly higher without justification. Here, the default rate doubled the non-default rate and the court finds there was no justification under the evidence presented. Opinion below.
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 29, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2016)
(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.
Judge: Kethledge
(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar 15, 2016)
The bankruptcy court denies the department’s motion to reconsider the judgment finding the debtor was entitled to a discharge of the debt to the department. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Department: Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Heather M. Crockett, Maricel E.V. Skiles, Spencer W. Tanner
Attorneys for Debtor: Redman Lugwig, Keith Eirik Gifford
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2016)
(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
(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