|
New Cases For the Week of June 4, 2001 - June 8, 2001
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
|
June 8, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Jastrem
(Adobe Acrobat required) |
9th Cir. |
A
prepetition obligation to pay Chapter 7 legal fees in
postpetition installments is subject to discharge and the
automatic stay. |
In
re Thompson Boat Company
(DBN Subscription Required) |
6th Cir. |
The
prepetition liens of a statutory lien claimant did not attach
to the estate's postpetition preference recoveries. |
In
re Cybernetics Service, Inc.
(Adobe Acrobat required) |
9th Cir. |
The
holder of a security interest in a patent is not required to
record notice of its lien with the Patent and Trademark Office
in order to perfect the interest. |
|
|
|
|
June 7, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Central
States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, et al. v.
Basic American Industries, Inc., et al.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
7th Cir. |
Because
of the assumption provisions of 11 USC 365, filing for
bankruptcy is not a per se anticipatory repudiation of
executory contract debts. Rejection of an executory
contract is anticipatory repudiation. A
debtor/employer's bankruptcy did not start the limitations
period for purposes of a claim under the Multiemployer Pension
Plan Amendments Act. The debtor's liability for such a
claim did not arise until the debtor's cessation of
operations, which occurred postpetition. |
|
|
|
|
June 5, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Border
Fruit Express v. Transportation Factoring
(DBN Subscription Required) |
9th Cir. |
Although
a factor may be receiving PACA trust asset in the course of
factoring, a factoring agreement does not per se violate PACA.
So long as the price paid by the factor is commercially
reasonable, neither the factor nor the debtor is liable to
PACA claimants for breach of trust. |
|
|
|
|
June 4, 2001
|
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re Ryan
(DBN Subscription Required) |
4th Cir. |
Since
the reasoning of Dewsnup applies equally to "strip
offs" and "strip downs," a Chapter 13 debtor
may not strip down a wholly unsecured lien on his residence. |
In
re Soost
(Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in required to view) |
8th Cir.
BAP |
When
a debtor claims only $1 of an asset as exempt, the exemption
is limited to that amount even where no party in interest
timely objects to the exemption. Accordingly, the debtor
could not avoid, under 11 USC 522(d), a judicial lien on the
grounds that his entire interest in the subject asset was
exempt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|