Category Archives: judge

Congratulations to the New Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court (ND IL)

Bankruptcy_court_logo
Congratulations to Judge Bruce W. Black, who will become Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, replacing current Chief Judge Carol Doyle. Chief Judge Black will continue to hear all matters assigned to the Joliet Call on Fridays, which includes cases filed in Will, Grundy, Kendall and LaSalle counties. His chambers will be moving from the 6th to the 7th floor of the Dirsken Federal Building in Chicago. Likewise, his Courtroom will  be changing to Room 719 and Chambers will be located in Room 756. All pending, previously assigned Eastern division cases (with a few exceptions) that do not include the four counties making up the Joliet call will be re-assigned to other judges in the Eastern Division immediately. If your case is affected, you will receive a notice from the Court.   
Click here to view this information on the Bankruptcy Court’s website.
Advertisements

In re Outboard Marine (ND IL ED)(J. Squires)

In re Outboard Marine Corporation, et al., 00-037405
Issued: June 23, 2011
Judge: John H. Squires

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

The UpshotWhen sanctions are requested upon a party’s motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(A), two requirements must be met: the motion must be made separate and apart from other motions or requests and “[must] describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b)[,]” and “the motion may not be presented to the court unless, within twenty-one days of service, the non-movant has not withdrawn or corrected the challenged behavior.” The Trustee argues that the Statement of Interest filed by Counsel on behalf of NAEIR warrants sanctions under Rule 9011 because theStipulation released any right NAEIR had to assert a claim against the proceeds of the ACE GL Policies and, as such, the Statement of Interest is not reasonably based in law or fact. Next, the Trustee seeks sanctions against Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which provides as follows: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.

In re Jones, 10-04352 (ND IL ED)(J. Hollis)

Bankruptcy_court_logo

In re Willie and Peggy Jones, 10-004352

Ruling issued Feb. 24, 2011

By the Hon. Pamela S. Hollis

The Issue: A creditor moves to Amend the Plan and for Relief from Plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329, relief from staypursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), and relief from the Confirmation Order, pursuant to Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 60(b).

The Opinion: In this case the creditor was a pawn shop and the debtor had a loan from the creditor secured by jewelry.  The debtor listed the pawn shop as a creditor and the plan allowed for repayment of the loan.  The pawn shop received notice its status as a creditor and of the plan; however, the pawn shop never appeared in court nor objected to the plan.  Only after the plan was confirmed and it had received the first payment, did it file this motion.  The court dismissed all counts of the motion.  The 1329 claim was dismissed because the pawn shop “is a secured creditor and only a debtor, the Trustee, or the holder of an unsecured claim can seek modification.”  The court does a thorough job of analyzing the FRCP 60(b) and 11 USC 362(d) claims.

Click here to view and download the Opinion as to the Motion to Amend
Click here to view and download the Opinion as to the Motion for Damages

In re Olde Prairie (ND IL ED)(J. Schmetterer)

In re Olde Prairie Block Owner, LLC, 10-022668
Opinion Issued by Judge: Jack B. Schmetterer

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

In re Lisa C. Davis, 08-16025 (ND IL ED)(J. Wedoff)

In re Lisa C. Davis, 08-16025
Issued December 16, 2010
By Judge Eugene Wedoff

 

The Issue: 11 USC 1325(b), introduced by BAPCPA in connection with the notorious hanging paragraph at 1325(a) – states that a plan of reorganization in Chapter 13 must commit all the debtor‘s discretionary income each month or pay creditors in full; or face dismissal. The issue in this case was whether 1325(b) requires the debtor to commit all discretionary income or pay all creditors in full when seeking to modify their confirmed Chapter 13 Plan.

The Upshot: No. 11 USC 1325(b) does not require the debtor’s full commitment of discretionary income or full payment of creditors when a confirmed plan is under consideration. When a debtor sought to modify her plan due to a change in circumstances that would have permitted her to pay less at the outset of the plan and shorten the plan’s commitment period if it had occurred before the initial plan was drawn up, the Court allowed her to use those lower numbers going forward regardless of whether the use of those figures satisfied 1325(b).
Ed. Note: Booyah! Chapter 13 debtors win.

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

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.

 

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.