In re Thomas

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 1, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtors’ motion to seal a settlement agreement they reached with an adversary proceeding defendant. The debtors stated that if the documents were not sealed, the other party would not agree to the settlement. However, the debtors failed to provide any evidence to establish that the circumstances warranted the relief requested. Public access to court records should only be restricted in appropriate circumstances. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for the Debtors: Strauss Troy, Robert R. Sparks; Matthew T. Sanning

2018-03-01 – in re thomas

Author: Matt Lindblom

McKay v. City of Detroit, Michigan (In re City of Detroit)

(6th Cir. Sep. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released. Opinion below.

Judge: Sutton

Attorney for Creditor: Eric Stempien

Attorney for Debtor: Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, Marc N. Swanson, Ronald A. Spinner

2017-09-28 – in re city of detroit

Author: Matt Lindblom



Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame)

(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

Attorneys for Debtors: Evans Petree, David J. Cocke, Glankler Brown, Michael P. Coury

Attorneys for Appellees: Cantey Hanger, Bruce W. Akerly

2016-06-07 – in re blasingame

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Equine Oxygen Therapy Resources, Inc., et al.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2015)

The bankruptcy court approves the proposed settlement agreement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The court applies the Sixth Circuit Bard factors to determine whether the settlement is fair and equitable: (1) probability of success in the litigation; (2) difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) complexity of the litigation involved; and (4) paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises. The claim settled was a bad faith claim against an insurer under Florida law. Applying each of the factors, the Court holds the settlement is fair and equitable. Opinion below.

2015-03-20 – in re equine oxygen therapy

Author: Matt Lindblom