Harper v. Conco ESOP Trustees

(W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order enjoining the transfer of certain equity interests in the reorganized chapter 11 debtor because it violated the terms of the confirmed plan. The court determines that the bankruptcy court interpreted rather than modified the plan and thus the district court reviews the appealed order for abuse of discretion. While the plan did not expressly prohibit the transfer of the equity interests, the facts surrounding the negotiation and confirmation of the plan clearly evidenced the interested parties’ intent to prohibit such transfer until a certain date. Opinion below.

Attorneys for Appellants: Kaplan & Partners, LLP, Casey L. Hinkle, David S. Kaplan; Keller Rohrback LLP, David S. Preminger; Frost Brown Todd LLC, Cory J. Skolnick, Edward M. King, John S. Egan; Hahn & Hessen LLP, Gilbert Backenroth, Jeffrey Zawadzki; Seiller Waterman, LLC, Neil Charles Bordy

Attorneys for ESOP Trustees: Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Lea Pauley Goff, P. Douglas Barr

Attorneys for Oversight Committee: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., James R. Irving, John W. Ames

2016-07-07 – harper v conco esop trustees

 

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Kotsopoulos v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co. (In re Kotsopoulos)

(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2014)

The bankruptcy court grants the bank’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses the debtors’ adversary complaint against it. Prepetition, the bank had foreclosed on the debtors’ mortgage in state court. The debtors’ complaint alleged that the bank knew it had an invalid mortgage when it sought the relief in state court, which constituted fraud and an abuse of process. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the complaint. That doctrine prohibits a lower federal court from reviewing a state court’s final judgment. Because the state court enforced the mortgage in favor of the bank, the bankruptcy court could not reconsider whether the mortgage was valid. Opinion below.

2014-10-10 – in re kotsopoulos