Recently in Case Update Category

SonCo Holdings, LLC v. Bradley

Justia Case Summaries.png

The SEC filed a complaint. The court appointed a receiver to handle defendants' assets for distribution among victims of the $31 million fraud. Assets included oil and gas leases. SonCo filed a claim. The parties came to terms; the court entered an agreed order that required SonCo to pay $580,000 for assignment of the leases. The wells were unproductive, because of freeze orders entered to prevent dissipation of assets; the lease operator, ALCO, had posted a $250,000 bond with the Texas Railroad Commission. The bond was, in part, from defrauded investors. SonCo was ordered to replace ALCO as operator and to obtain a bond. More than a year later, SonCo had not posted the bond or obtained Commission authorization to operate the wells, but had paid for the assignment. The judge held SonCo in contempt and ordered it to return the leases, allowing the receiver to keep $600,000 that SonCo had paid. SonCo returned the leases. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that SonCo willfully violated the order, but vacated the sanction. The judge on remand may: reimpose the sanction, upon demonstrating that it is a compensatory remedy for civil contempt; impose a different, or no sanction; or proceed under rules governing criminal contempt.

Download the Opinion in .pdf format.

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

Eqp. Acq. Resources v. IRS et al. (ND IL ED)(J. Squires)

In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., 09-039937
Equipment Acq. Resources, Inc. v. IRS, etc., 10 A 00099
Issued: June 22, 2011
Judge: John H. Squires

Click here to view and download the opinion.

The Upshot: The Bankruptcy Code was amended to remove the concept of sovereign immunity and get around 2 US Supreme Court cases: Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96 (1989) and U.S. v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992). Those cases held that the former §106(c) of the Code did not express with sufficient clarity Congress's intent to abrogate sovereign immunity as to the federal government and states. But here the United States chose to focus its argument on §544(b) and maintain that sovereign immunity bars Debtor's claims because Illinois law does not allow unsecured creditors to maintain fraudulent transfer actions against the United States. The Court noted that "applicable law" generally means state law and that "[t]o require a trustee to demonstrate that the United States has waived sovereign immunity in every instance in which the trustee seeks to rely on state law for the purpose of §544 would render the general abrogation of sovereign immunity under §106 almost meaningless."

same sex bankruptcy case

A New York bankruptcy court ruled that a same sex married couple can file a joint bankruptcy case, just the same as a heterosexual married couple, regardless of the existence of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This case, In re Somers and Caggiano, No. 10-38296 (Bky.S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011), and the rulings in In re Balas and Morales, No. 2:11-bk-17831 (Bky.C.D.Cal, June 13, 2011), and In re Ziviello-Howell, No. 11-22706 (Bky.E.D.Cal. May 31, 2011), are the first instances where U.S. bankruptcy courts have approved the filing of joint bankruptcy petitions by same sex married couples.

The bankruptcy court in In re Somers and Caggiano turned aside a motion by the U.S. Trustee to dismiss the joint chapter 7 filing by the debtors, who had been legally married in Vermont in 2010. The U.S. Trustee pointed out that although section 302(a) of the bankruptcy code allows a joint bankruptcy case to be filed by debtors who are legally married, the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. section 7, defines a married couple as consisting only of opposite sex married couples.

The court was not persuaded by the U.S. Trustee"s argument that the Defense of Marriage Act mandated dismissal of the case. It noted that the U.S. Attorney General had announced in a letter dated February 23, 2011, sent to House Speaker John Boehner, that the Justice Department would cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court proceedings, due to concerns about DOMA"s constitutionality.

The court also noted that the U.S. Trustee had not argued the issue of DOMA"s constitutionality in its brief to the court. The U.S. Trustee had merely quoted the language of DOMA. The court found that "the mere existence of DOMA is not sufficient to remove the duty imposed on this Court" to find "cause" under section 707(a) of the bankruptcy code before dismissing a case under that section.

The court found that the U.S. Trustee had not met its burden of proving that dismissal would be in the best interests of the debtors or their creditors. There were no allegations of bad faith, hidden assets, "stalling" or other bad faith on the part of the debtors. Additionally, if the pending joint bankruptcy case were severed, the chapter 7 trustee would have to administer a "single pool of assets for a single pool of creditors over two cases." This would be inconvenient and pointless.

The New York bankruptcy court"s refusal to dismiss this same sex joint bankruptcy case has been viewed as good news by those advocating for equal treatment in federal bankruptcy courts for married same sex couples. However, as noted by Virginia bankruptcy attorney Dan Press in a recent Bankruptcy Law Network article, due to the vagaries of the bankruptcy law"s means test, same sex couples are usually better off filing separate bankruptcy cases rather than joint cases, on the theory that DOMA prevents them from filing joint cases even if they are legally married.

In re Lubavitch Chabad, Ch.11 (ND IL ED)

From FreeCourtDocket

Lubavitch Chabad (of the Loop, Gold Coast, and Lincoln Park), 11-24809

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy before the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Div.

Click here to view and download documents from the case.

In re Nolen/Community CU v. Nolen (ND IL ED)(J. Schmetterer)

Bankruptcy_court_logo

Bankruptcy: In re Kent Nolen, 10-023190
Adversary: Comm. Schools C.U. v. Nolen, 10-01853
Opinion Issued April 11, 2011
By Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

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

In re Sharif (ND IL ED)(J. Cox)

In re Richard Sharif, 09-05868
Issued on March 14, 2011
By Hon. Jacqueline P. Cox

The Story: The Court entered orders in an Adversary case providing, among other things, that the Soad Wattar Revocable Trust of 1992 was the alter ego of Debtor Richard Shariff (July 06, 2010 Order), and that Wells Fargo Financial Advisors must turn over Trust assets to the Bankruptcy Trustee pursuant to FRCP 60 (August 5, 2010). Movant Ragda Sharifeh sought relief from those orders and leave to intervene in the proceedings. On March 10, 2011 the Court ruled.

The Issues: Movant Sharifeh sought to vacate the portion of the July 06 Order that deemed the Trust to be the Debtor's alter ego; and overturn the order relating to Wells Fargo. In the alternative, the movant invoked FRBP 8005 and asked that enforcement of the August 5 Order be stayed pending final disposition of a related adversary proceeding.

The Upshot: On March 10, 2011 the Court denied Sharifeh's motion and ruled that

(1) The movant had failed to establish the the prerequisites for the imposition of a stay under FRBP 8005;
(2) FRCP 60 was not the proper vehicle for asserting the movant's legal error argument in any case; and
(3) The Court no longer had jurisdiction to act on the orders; which could be appealed to the District Court.

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

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

January 31, 2011, by

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!

January 11, 2011, by

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,Nc 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

Bankruptcy Case Update (ND Illinois)

December 28, 2010, by

Trustee v. Penn Media, 03 A 01141

November 7, 2010, by

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

November 4, 2010, by

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

In re Hanson/Deady v. Hanson (J. Squires)

October 20, 2010, by

Bankruptcy In re Stuart M. Hanson d/b/a Hanson & White, LLC, 09-04820

Adversary Michael Deady v. Stuart M. Hanson, 09-00457

Issued October 14, 2010 By Judge John H. Squires

For Plaintiff: William P. Suriano, Esq.

For Defendant: Robert R. Benjamin Esq. & John M. Brom, Esq.

Trustee: Gina B. Krol, Esq.

The Upshot: Motion to Amend judgment order is not a second bite at the apple. The points of law and fact being referred to in the moving party's pleadings must be placed before the Court so that the Judge is not forced to dig through the record. The outcome here was the same as the outcome in the companion case of Grant, LLC v. Hanson: motion denied.

Download and view the Opinion in .pdf format here.

Westlaw Case Updates

October 5, 2010, by
Cir. 5
Reed v. City of Arlington (09-17)
Chapter 7 bankruptcy in which debtors omitted a pending $1 million-plus judgment from their sworn statements and bankruptcy filings. The district court's order discharging debtors is reversed to protect the integrity of the judicial processes, and estoppel barred the trustee from collecting.

Cir. 6
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust v. Tucker (09-15)
Bankruptcy court's judgment sustaining debtor's claim that she only needed to cure the portion of her default that is secured and that the fees and expenses in connection with her underlying mortgage should be treated as unsecured amounts is vacated and remanded. Bank's fees and advances allowed under the parties' agreement and non-bankruptcy law must be included in the cure amount.

Cir. 9
In re: Gebhart (09-14)
Where the value of debtors' home increased, giving rise to nonexempt equity, the court's order approving appointment of a real estate broker to sell the home for the benefit of the estate is affirmed where the fact that the value of the claimed exemption plus the amount of the encumbrances on the debtor"s residence was, in each case, equal to the market value of the residence at the time of filing the petition did not remove the entire asset from the estate.

Cir. 10
In re: Dittmar (09-14)
In bankruptcy trustees' appeal from the judgment of the bankruptcy appellate panel holding that debtors' stock appreciation rights (SARs) were not part of debtors' bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. section 541, the order is reversed where: 1) while the value of the SARs before any payment event occurred may have been de minimis that did not mean that debtors did not have a property interest in the SARs; and 2) the SARs created by the collective bargaining agreement at issue were more akin to contingent pre-petition property rights than mere expectancies based on discretionary bonuses.
Enhanced by Zemanta

In re Vito O. Roppo, 09 B 37273

September 22, 2010, by

In re Vito O. Roppo, 09 B 37273

Opinion Sept. 16, 2010

Judge: John H. Squires

Debtor's lavish living warranted dismissal of Chapter 7 case as abusive.

A Chapter 7 case that was not filed in response to any sudden illness, calamity, disability or unemployment by a debtor who budgeted expenses consistently exceeded those permitted under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards, including the $2,250 per month that the debtor budgeted as a rental expense for a four-bedroom, 3,750-square-foot home for himself, his wife and their one child, had to be dismissed based on the totality of circumstances of the debtor's financial situation as an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7. Inexplicably, despite the fact that his wife had recently emerged from her own Chapter 7 case and did not work outside the home, the debtor had purchased a luxury automobile on her behalf, on which the payments were $520 per month. The debtor had the ability to fund a Chapter 13 plan to make a distribution on unsecured claims.

To view the opinion in PDF format click here.