A fundamental principle of bankruptcy law provides that similarly situated creditors are to be treated similarly. That concept seems straightforward, but applying it in today’s complex corporate restructuring environment is not, as was illustrated in the reorganization of Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody” or “the Company”).

Being inexperienced can contribute to getting into disciplinary trouble, but it can also be a mitigating factor in a bar disciplinary case. That’s the message of a recent opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which imposed a six month suspension from state practice as reciprocal discipline on a lawyer who had already been suspended from federal bankruptcy court practice for five years.

Raising the risk?

In a decision signed July 17, 2017 in the Our Alchemy, LLC bankruptcy (case 16-11596), Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a trustee’s partial motion to dismiss a complaint, holding that a creditor cannot assert general claims against a Chapter 7 Trustee in his official capacity (essentially a derivative action meant to enrich the creditor body) .

Unsecured creditors frequently find themselves in the lurch when a company files for bankruptcy. One of the few mechanisms for recovering the value of goods supplied to a debtor prior to a bankruptcy case is an administrative expense claim under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. In an administratively solvent bankruptcy case, an administrative expense claim will allow a creditor to obtain payment in full of the value of goods received by the debtor within the twenty-day period immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint seeking to avoid a transfer to the bank defendant. The transfer consisted of the Bank exercising its contractual setoff right and applying funds in the debtor’s bank account to the Bank’s claim. The transfer occurred while the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The debtor fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Prospector Offshore Drilling S.à r.l., and 3 of its affiliates, has filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-11572). The entities are affiliates of the Paragon debtors that filed for chapter 11 on February 14, 2016.

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditors’ objection to the debtors’ claimed homestead exemption. The property was not owned solely by the debtors, so the exemption would apply only to their partial interest in the property. The property was sold but there was no evidence as to the amount allocated to the debtors’ interest in the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtors: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditors: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert

(6th Cir. July 14, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to compel the Chapter 7 trustee to abandon their residential real property. The trustee sought to evict the debtors in order to sell the property and pay creditors. The trustee argued that because he tendered the homestead exemption payment to the debtors, eviction should be permitted. The debtors argued and presented evidence to establish that there was no equity for the estate considering the condition of the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Gilman

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The creditor argued the debtor should be collaterally estopped from defending based on a prepetition judgment entered against the debtor. The court concludes that the issues were not “fairly and fully litigated” in the state court, and thus summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is not appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly