U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC

(U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 5, 2018)

The Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit’s determination that a “clear error” review applied to the issue presented. The issue was whether an individual creditor was an “insider” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), which in this case determined whether a chapter 11 cramdown plan could be confirmed. The issue required the bankruptcy court to apply established facts to the correct legal standard for determination of insider status (a mixed question of law and fact). The Court holds that this particular question entails primarily legal work rather than factual work. Accordingly, “clear error” review was appropriate. Opinion below.

Justice: Kagan

2018-03-05 – u. s. bank n. a. v. village at lakeridge, llc

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Wrigley’s 7-711, Inc. (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

Attorneys for Defendant: Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2017-06-21 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Monday Coal, LLC (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss except with respect to payments received from the debtor within the 90-day prepetition preference period. The court first finds that the trustee failed to state a claim for avoidance of alleged preferential transfers made outside the 90-day period because the facts alleged did not show that the defendant was an “insider” as defined in the bankruptcy code or a “non-statutory insider” under case law. The trustee also failed to allege facts sufficient to support various other claims to avoid transfers to the defendant. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Jamies R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

Attorneys for Defendant: Stites & Harbison, Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2017-04-13 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom