Kentucky Employees Retirement System v. Seven Counties Services, Inc.

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that Seven Counties Services, Inc. was permitted to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief because it was not a “governmental unit” as defined in the bankruptcy code. Further, the debtor’s contract with KERS was properly deemed an executory contract that could be rejected by the debtor. The court makes one factual correction to the record, but the bankruptcy court’s decision is affirmed in all other respects. Opinion below.

Judge: Hale

Attorneys for KERS: Ice Miller LLP, Daniel R. Swetnam, Tyson A. Crist, Victoria E. Powers

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman, LLC, David Cantor, Tyler R. Yeager, Gray & White, Paul Joseph Hershberg, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Philip C. Eschels, Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP, Theodore T. Myre, Jr.

2016-03-31 – kers v seven counties services

Author: Matt Lindblom

Kentucky Employees Retirement System v. Seven Counties Services, Inc.

(W.D. Ky. Feb. 4, 2015)

The district court denies the appellants’ motion to stay the bankruptcy court’s orders confirming the debtor’s chapter 11 plan until appeals are concluded. The court holds that the appellant failed to show likelihood of success on its appeal of the issue of whether an executory contract existed between the appellant and the debtor. Further, the appellants failed to show certain and immediate harm would result if the confirmation orders are not stayed. Opinion below.

2015-02-04 – kers v seven counties services

Author: Matt Lindblom

Seven Counties Services, Inc. v. NextGen Healthcare Systems, LLC

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2014)

The adversary proceeding defendant filed a motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court, arguing the debtor’s claims were merely non-core breach of contract claims. The district court denied the motion, finding that the defendant consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction when it filed its proof of claim. The defendant’s withdrawal of the proof of claim after the adversary proceeding was filed did not alter the effect of that consent. Opinion below.

2014-08-12 – seven counties services v nextgen healthcare