Underhill v. Huntington National Bank (In re Underhill)

(6th Cir. Sep. 10, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit reverses the B.A.P.’s and the bankruptcy court’s decisions finding the debtor’s tortious interference claim against a competitor was property of the estate. The competitor’s improper acts that led to the supplier breaching its contract with the debtor began before the debtor’s bankruptcy petition was filed. However, the supplier did not breach the contract with the debtor until after the petition date. Because the actual injury to the debtor did not occur prepetition (i.e., the tortious interference claim was not established until the contract was breached), the cause of action was not property of the estate. Judge Donald dissents. Opinion below.

2014-09-10 – in re underhill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s