Korean Claimants v. Debtor’s Representatives (In re Settlement Facility Dow Corning Trust)

(6th Cir. Nov. 23, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the 2015 consent order specifying the manner in which certain provisions of the confirmed Chapter 11 plan would apply to a class of claim holders. The Korean Claimants objected, arguing that the district court lacked authority to enter the consent order and that the consent order was an impermissible modification of the distribution agreement. The court holds that the court had the requisite authority to enter the consent order and it merely clarified the distribution agreement rather than modified it. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

Attorney for Claimants: Yeon Ho Kim

Attorneys for Debtor Entities: Deborah E. Greenspan, Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Ernest H Hornsby, Dianna Pendleton-Dominguez

2016-11-23-in-re-dow-corning

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Elkins

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Dean A. Langdon

Attorney for Creditor: Miller, Griffin & Marks, P.S.C., Carroll M. Redford, III

2016-11-22-in-re-elkins

Author: Matt Lindblom

U.S. v. Bush

(S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s holding that a tax penalty is dischargeable if the penalty is described by either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(A) or (B). Opinion below.

Judge: McKinney

Attorney for Appellant: Peter Sklarew

Attorneys for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, PC, Julie A. Camden

2016-11-18-us-v-bush

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Parrish

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the debtor’s motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay. The government agency sought to collect its loan default claim by set off against the debtor’s tax refund. The debtor filed bankruptcy, and the government effected the set off before its system flagged the account for the bankruptcy. The court finds a technical violation of the automatic stay but also finds that a set off would have been appropriate and there was no evidence that a stay relief motion would have been denied. Accordingly, the court awards the debtor a minimal amount for the inadvertent stay violation. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Julie Ann O’Bryan

Attorney for Creditor: Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jessica R. C. Malloy

2016-11-16-in-re-parrish

Author: Matt Lindblom

Zadeh v. Nelson (In re Nelson)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016)

The Court grants the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability action. The debtor’s ex-spouse sought to declare nondischargeable a state court judgment awarding him his overpayment of child support. However, he failed to timely serve the summons and complaint under Bankruptcy rule 7004(e), the statute of limitations barred the claim to the extent it sought relief under § 523(a)(2)(A), and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented the bankruptcy court from ruling on the issue because multiple state courts had already done so. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Plaintiff and Defendant: Pro Se

2016-11-15-in-re-nelson

Author: Matt Lindblom

Phi Air Medical, LLC v. Westenhoefer (In re White)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 11, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the trustee in this declaratory judgment action, in which the plaintiff sought a judgment that certain health insurance proceeds were not property of the estate. The plaintiff argued that the debtor had assigned the proceeds to it prior to the bankruptcy, but the court holds that the evidence presented did not establish such assignment. The debtor’s spouse had signed the document for him, but the debtor’s spouse did not have the requisite agency authority to do so. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Plaintiff: Stites & Harbison PLLC, Chrisandrea L. Turner

Attorney for Defendant: Barber Law PLLC, T. Kent Barber

Author: Matt Lindblom

2016-11-11-in-re-white

In re Blasingame

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. reverses the bankruptcy court’s order sanctioning the attorney under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court holds that the movant failed to satisfy the twenty-one day safe harbor in Rule 9011 and the one exception to the safe harbor did not apply because the attorney did not actually sign the petition, although he did advise on the case. Further, sanctions under § 1927 were not appropriate because the bankruptcy judge found that the attorney’s behavior fell short of subjective bad faith. The statute requires tactics that far exceed zealous advocacy. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Movant: Malone Akerly Martin, Bruce W. Akerly, Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, Carl Barry Ward

Attorney for Appellant: Edward Michael Bearman

Author: Matt Lindblom

2016-11-07-in-re-blasingame