Bankruptcy Attorney Laura Margulies & Associates Rockville Maryland Lawyer

News

Top Headlines
[02/08] Reports: Toyota plans to recall 300,000 Priuses
[02/08] Michael Jackson doctor charged in singer's death
[02/08] Ex-Intel executive pleads guilty in NYC to fraud
[02/08] UN patent filings dropped for 1st time since 1978
[02/08] Barzee pleads guilty to charge in Smart case
More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[02/08] Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
In an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff during the pendency of her Chapter 13 proceedings, summary judgment for defendant on the ground of judicial estoppel is affirmed where plaintiff failed to disclose her employment discrimination suit to the bankruptcy court, and thus took inconsistent positions under oath with the intent of misleading the court.

[01/26] In re: Baldwin
In bankruptcy adversary proceedings by the trustee seeking to dissolve a family limited partnership in which debtor owned a 99% limited partnership interest at the time the bankruptcy proceeding commenced, the bankruptcy appellate panel's order prohibiting the trustee from dissolving the partnership is affirmed where the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding the partnership could no longer carry on its business in conformity with the partnership agreement. Moreover, the bankruptcy court's order permitting the trustee to withdraw from the partnership is affirmed where the agreement entitled the limited partner to withdraw by making a buy/sell offer.

[01/25] B-Line, LLC v. Wingerter
In Chapter 13 proceedings, the decision of the bankruptcy court in holding that plaintiff's purchase of a creditor's claim against the debtors was not valid is reversed where: 1) the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that the purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the intermediary did not contain representations about the validity of the claims purchased by plaintiff; and 2) the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff's actions violated Rule 9011(b) and were therefore sanctionable.

[01/22] United Rentals, Inc. v. Angell
District court's order affirming a bankruptcy court judgment allowing the bankruptcy trustee to avoid and recover certain payments made to plaintiff during the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy petition is affirmed as, regardless of whether the transfers set in motion a chain of events that resulted in the debtor's recoupment of the amounts paid, plaintiff did not show that such new value was given to the debtor as part of a contemporaneous exchange.

[01/22] In re: Jackson
In debtors' appeal from a bankruptcy court's order allowing them, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 522(d)(11)(E), to exempt from their bankruptcy estate only part of a settlement payment they received, the order is affirmed where: 1) debtors' contention that all of one debtor's earnings following the termination of his employment could be exempted because they would be termed future earnings under tort law was unpersuasive given the different purposes of tort law and bankruptcy law; and 2) debtors provided the bankruptcy court with no evidence based on which it could determine their actual income.

[01/15] In re: Reliant Energy Channelview LP
In Chapter 11 proceedings involving a bid for the debtors' largest asset, a power plant, bankruptcy court's denial of a bidder's request for disbursement of administrative expenses in the form of a break-up fee from the estate is affirmed as the court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that an award of a break-up fee was not necessary to preserve the value of the estate.

[01/11] Wells Fargo Home Mortgage v. Lindquist
In an action by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to avoid the pre-petition transfer of a mortgage from debtor to a bank, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) because defendant-bank was already a creditor of the debtor when it received the mortgage from the debtor, the mortgage was transferred "to or for the benefit of a creditor"; and 2) the transfer of the mortgage diminished the bankruptcy estate.

[01/11] In Re: Jones
In defendants' Chapter 7 proceedings, district court's judgment that plaintiff-creditor had the right to repossess their vehicle is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in holding that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) eliminated the ride-through option; 2) plaintiff had authority to repossess the vehicle pursuant to the contract's ipso facto clause without giving the defendants prior notice of a right to cure the default under state law; and 3) plaintiff was not required to give defendants notice of default and right to cure before repossessing the vehicle as both parties agree that the event that triggered default, the filing of a bankruptcy petition, cannot be cured.

[01/08] In re: Blast Energy. Servs. Inc.
In a creditor's appeal from the district court's order denying the creditor's motion for rehearing of its appeal of the bankruptcy court's order confirming the debtor's Chapter 11 reorganization plan, the order is reversed where: 1) the actions the debtor took to substantially consummate the plan before the creditor could obtain a stay did not insulate the plan from an appellate challenge; and 2) 11 U.S.C. section 1127(b) had no relevancy to the appeals at issue, each of which was brought by a creditor and challenger of the plan.

[01/08] In re: Ormsby
In an action by a creditor to prevent the bankruptcy court's discharge of a state court judgment against the debtor, summary judgment for the creditor is affirmed where: 1) the debtor's conduct constituted larceny within the federal meaning of the term, and accordingly under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4), his debt could not be discharged; 2) the debtor knew that the creditor's injury was substantially certain to occur as a result of his conduct; and 3) the district court's withdrawal of the creditor's motion for attorney's fees and subsequent decision on attorney's fees were not improper.
More...

Bankruptcy News