Category Archives: case update

7th Cir. Opinions

7th Circuit Opinion Summaries courtesy of Justia.com

United States v. Rogan

Bankruptcy, Criminal Law, Government, White Collar Crime

River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank

Bankruptcy

Bloomfield State Bank v. United States

Bankruptcy, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

Costello v. Grundon

Bankruptcy, Commercial Law, Securities Law

CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al

Bankruptcy, Business Law, Securities Law

Reedsburg Util. Comm’n v. Grede Foundries, Inc.

Bankruptcy, Utilities Law

Kimbrell v. Brown

Bankruptcy, Injury Law

Advertisements

Reedsburg Util. Comm’n v. Grede Foundries (7th Cir.)

Justia Case Summaries

Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email

Justia.com Opinion Summary:

Wisconsin smelting plant owed more than $1.3 million in delinquent utility charges to the local municipal utility when it filed for Chapter 11. Months later, despite the Automatic Stay, a utility company implemented a process pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes and Local Ordinances 66.0809 and 66.0627 by which the plant’s unpaid utility bills became a lien against the Debtor‘s property. Both the Bankruptcy and District Courts found that none of the exceptions to the Automatic Stay applied to make their actions. They were, in fact, a violation of the Stay.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no exception to the Stay applied and the offending utility company creditor did not obtain a pre-petition security interest in the plant’s property by providing services or by giving notice in the form of billing. Finally, the 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court that the utility bills produced did not amount to a “tax or special assessment” that would have exempted them from the operation of the Stay.

Click here to download this Opinion in PDF format


Harris v. Gander Partners (ND IL)

Harris N.A. v. Gander Partners LLC ,(N.D.Ill.)

Issue: When an LLC is in Chapter 11 reorganization, can a creditor collect directly from the principals of the company instead?

Answer: Apparently not in the Northern District of Illinois

Upshot: Here, the Court upheld an injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court after determining that

  • The participation of these principles was essential to the company’s reorganization
  • If these principles were distracted by this lawsuit the reorganization would likely fail
  • Many other creditors would be harmed financially if this reorganization failed; and
  • The creditor seeking to collect only faced only a temporary stay, anyway.

In the immortal words of Spockcirca Star Trek IIthe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

In re Adolph, 09-32836 (ND Ill. ED)(J. Goldgar)

In re Braden J. Adolph, 09-32836
Issued: January 28, 2011
By:  A. Benjamin Goldgar

The Issues
: The proper use and interpretation of 11 USC 707(a) and (b), the dynamic duo of bankruptcy dismissal. Under consideration is the distinction between dismissal for cause via 707(a) and the presumption of abuse in 707(b).

The Upshot
: Judge Goldgar engages in a close analysis of 11 USC 707 and determines that bad faith is not a reason to dismiss under 707(a) and only consumer debts can be excepted from discharge under 707(b) – especially in light of BAPCPA. In this case, where an Attorney seeks his fees from a business debtor of his Client, the Court finds him to be out of luck – not a consumer debt, and not a bad faith filing. Boom shakalaka.

Click here to view and download the opinion in .pdf format.

 

Thanks for Everything!

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

Healthy blog!

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is on fire!.

Crunchy numbers

Featured image

A helper monkey made this abstract painting, inspired by your stats.

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 12,000 times in 2010. That’s about 29 full 747s.

 

In 2010, there were 109 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 493 posts. There were 26 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 2mb. That’s about 2 pictures per month.

The busiest day of the year was January 6th with 171 views. The most popular post that day was Recent Law School Grad? Open a Bankruptcy Practice!.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were thebklawyer.com, bankruptcylawnetwork.com, mha-law.com, search.aol.com, and en.wordpress.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for do i qualify for bankruptcy, suburbs, bankruptcy blog, do i qualify for bankruptcy in florida, and do i qualify for bankruptcy in california.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1

Recent Law School Grad? Open a Bankruptcy Practice! December 2009
2 comments

2

do you qualify for bankruptcy? take the instant means test January 2009
4 comments

3

household size and median income (IRS v. Census Bureau) July 2007
1 comment

4

Buying Distressed Assets Under §363 of the Code March 2007
1 comment

5

how to get kicked out of your home or appartment March 2007
2 comments

Trustee v. Penn Media, 03 A 01141

 

Bankruptcy:  In re marchFirst, Inc, 01 B 24742
Adversary: Trustee v. Penn Media, 03 A 01141
Opinion Issued: October 14, 2010
By;  The Hon. A. Benjamin Goldgar

Upshot: Trustee moves to recover a payment as part preference and part fraudulent transfer. Defendant, a creditor with which debtor did business, moves for summary judgment. Creditor/Defendant’s motion is granted as to the preference and denied as to the fraudulent transfer.

Click here to view and download the opinion in .pdf format.

Westlaw Case Updates

In re: Kleibrink (Cir. 5, Sep. 28)

In a debtor’s appeal from a district court‘s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s ruling that a creditor held an enforceable security interest in a property of his, despite his having received a discharge in an earlier bankruptcy proceeding, the order is affirmed where the notice given to the creditor did not satisfy the due process standard for notice set forth in Mullane.

In re: NM Holdings Co., LLC (Cir. 6, Sep. 30)

In a bankruptcy trustee‘s suit against debtor-company’s former auditor, claiming that the auditor negligently performed its audits by failing to uncover and report unsound related-party transactions entered into by the company’s sole shareholder and CEO, as well as aided and abetted the CEO’s breach of his fiduciary duty to the company, district court’s grant of the auditor’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trustee’s amended complaint does not allege reliance by the company or by the company’s fairness committee, and the alleged reliance by the company’s creditors cannot support a claim brought by the trustee on behalf of the company; and 2) district court did not err in holding that the residual statute of limitations applied to the trustee’s aiding-and-abetting claim.

In Re: Res. Tech. Corp. (Cir. 7, Oct. 1)

District Court affirmed Bankruptcy Court‘s rejection of Trustee’s proposed assignment of Debtor‘s contracts to a company managed by its former officers in exchange for that company paying debtor’s operating expenses because

1) Bankruptcy court carefully evaluated the assumption-and-assignment proposal under section 365(f)(2)(B), and its decision to deny the trustee’s motion was sound;

2) There was no reason to disturb Bankruptcy judge’s determination that the company failed to comply with its order requiring an escrow deposit; and

3) District Court’s contempt finding was fully supported by the record, and the court thoroughly considered and properly rejected the company’s defense to contempt.

Enhanced by Zemanta