New Cases For the Week of July 11, 2003

Katz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (DBN Subscription Required)	10th Cir. BAP	To challenge a taxpayer/debtor's petition year allocation of losses between his bankruptcy estate and partnerships in which the taxpayer was a partner the Commissioner of Internal Revenue must first bring a partnership-level proceeding, rather than a a proceeding involving only the taxpayer.
In re Williams (DBN Subscription Required)	5th Cir.	A debtor must commit an intentional or substantially certain injury in order to be deprived of a discharge. A debt is not excepted from discharge if the debtor has committed a willful or knowing act. A breach of contract may involve an intentional or substantially certain injury. A knowing breach of a clear contractual obligation that is certain to cause injury may prevent discharge under Section 523(a)(6), regardless of the existence of separate tortious conduct. Dischargeability of contractual debts under Section 523(a)(6) depends upon the knowledge and intent of the debtor at the time of the breach, rather than whether conduct is classified as a tort or falls within another statutory exception to discharge. The Court erred in finding that a claim arising from a debtor's violation of a collective bargaining agreement was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6), since there was no explicit proof that the debtor intended to injure the union or that injury to the union was substantially certain to occur. The court did not err however in finding that the same conduct was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6) where the conduct also violated an agreed judgment between the debtor and the union. When a court of the United States issues an injunction or other protective order telling a specific individual what actions will cross the line into injury to others, then damages resulting from an intentional violation of that order as is proven either in the Bankruptcy Court or, so long as there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the questions of volition and violation, in the issuing court are ipso facto the result of a "willful and malicious injury. This is because what is "just" or "unjust" conduct as between the parties has been defined by the court An intentional violation of the order is necessarily without "just cause or excuse" and cannot be viewed as not having the intention to cause the very harm to the protected persons that order was designed to prevent.
In re Carvalho (DBN Subscription Required)	1st Cir.	When a creditor is granted relief from the postconfirmation discharge injunction on account of a debtor's postconfirmation default, the relief from the discharge injunction does not nullify any prior lien-stripping bifurcation orders.
In re Crafts Precision Industries, Inc. (DBN Subscription Required)	1st Cir. BAP	The court did not err in finding that: (i) vacation pay, accrued more than 90 days before the date of the filing of the debtor's petition in bankruptcy, should not be considered a priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4) and (ii) retired employees are not included within the meaning of the phrase "number of employees covered" found in § 507(a)(4).