(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 12, 2014)
The bankruptcy court grants the chapter 11 debtor’s motions to modify subpoenas and for a protective order. The creditor’s subpoenas for documents and depositions of the debtor’s principals were overbroad in that they sought information outside the scope of the debtor’s proposed plan and the creditor’s objection to the plan. The court modifies the subpoenas so that they do not require the production of certain documents and testimony, including documents and testimony related to negotiations resulting in the proposed plan. Opinion below.
2014-11-12 – in re conco
The following opinions were recently made available on the website for the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana. I understand that opinions from this Court may be uploaded as “opinions” at different times (sometimes much later than the date they are issued), depending on the particular Judge and office staff. I will continue to check this Court’s website routinely and report on opinions that appear there.
Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev. v. Hooks (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Sep. 17, 2014)
Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev. v. Lucio (Bankr. N.D. Ind Sep. 17, 2014)
Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev. v. Meredith (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Sep. 17, 2014)
Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev. v. Quaglo (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Sep. 18, 2014) – Denial of the department’s motions for default judgment in nondischargeability actions, alleging debtors inappropriately accepted benefits. The debtors were in default for failure to timely respond to the complaints. However, the complaints failed to set out a prima facie claim of obtaining funds by false representations and thus default judgments were denied. Opinions below.
2014-09-17 – in dept of workforce dev v hooks
2014-09-17 – in dept of workforce dev v lucio
2014-09-17 – in dept of workforce dev v meredith
2014-09-18 – in dept of workforce dev v quaglio
In re Double Tree Lake Estates, LLC (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Sep. 18, 2014) – Denial of the debtors’ motion to quash subpoenas served on non-parties. The court rejects the debtors’ procedural arguments and finds that the debtors failed to show the requested information was irrelevant to the case. Opinion below.
2014-09-18 – in re double tree lake estates, llc