Giese v. Community Trust Bank (In re HNRC Dissolution Co.)

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

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms

Attorneys for Defendants: Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Philip Douglas Barr, Kent Durning, Lea Pauley Goff, Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, Janet Smith Hobrook, Martin B. Tucker, H. Derek Hall

2016-04-15 – in re hnrc dissolution co

Author: Matt Lindblom

Reisz v. Crocker

(W.D. Ky. Dec. 23, 2014)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order setting the Chapter 7 trustee’s commission at an amount lower than the § 326 statutory rate. The trustee sold collateral property with a $50,000 carveout for unsecured creditors. However, after the debtor’s homestead exemption and bankruptcy estate taxes were paid, only about $22,000 of the carveout remained. The trustee requested the remainder as a commission, as it was less than the statutory commission. The United States Trustee objected and requested the commission be set at $5,000, and the bankruptcy court entered its order with the lower amount. The trustee appealed, arguing the statutory rate was a reasonable commission. The district court affirmed, noting that the trustee should not have conducted the sale if there would be no benefit to unsecured creditors. The court held that the circumstances warranted a commission lower than the statutory rate. Opinion below.

2014-12-23 – reisz v crocker

In re Ban Am Express, Inc.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 17, 2014)

The bankruptcy court denies approval of the debtor hotel operator’s chapter 11 disclosure statement and grants in part the secured creditor’s motion to dismiss the case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§ 1112(b). The debtor’s proposed plan was not feasible, but the court concludes that immediate conversion or dismissal is not in the best interest of the estate creditors. Instead, the court orders that the debtor has 21 days to file a § 363 motion proposing a sale of the hotel properties. Opinion below.

2014-09-17 – in re ban am express