(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief because it was inadequately protected as a result of there being insufficient funds to make the first payment to the creditor under the confirmed Chapter 12 plan. Opinion below.
Atttorneys for the Debtor: Kaplan & Partners LLP, James Edwin McGhee, III, Charity Bird Neukomm
Attorneys for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox
2017-03-09 – in re buckman
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2015)
The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion to treat a post-petition claim as an administrative claim. The creditor had leased trailers to the debtor prepetition, and the debtor returned all but a few of the trailers to the creditor. The few trailers that were not returned apparently were stolen and not in the debtor’s possession post-petition. The creditor moved to allow the claim for post-petition lease payments for the missing trailers as an administrative expense claim. The court finds that there was no benefit to the estate for the post-petition lease of the trailers and all of the subject leases were entered into prepetition. Thus, it was inappropriate to treat the claim as an administrative claim. Opinion below.
2015-11-16 – in re walbert trucking
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 19, 2014)
The bankruptcy court overrules the trustee’s objection to the state agency creditor’s application for an administrative expense claim for expenses to correct environmental violations. The state agency sought administrative expense status for its estimate of such expenses to be incurred in the future. The court considers whether the claims were “actual and necessary” for preservation of the estate, and ultimately concludes that they are. The court orders that the claim be paid in small amounts as needed and that a reserve of funds be maintained for the estimated future costs.
At the end of the opinion, in “A Final Mea Culpa,” the court recognizes that the plan confirmed in this case could be interpreted in a way that violates § 1129(a). The court states that it expects an appeal will follow. Opinion below.
2014-11-19 – in re appalachian fuels