New Cases - Week of September 17, 2007

New Cases For the Week of September 24, 2007 - September 28, 2007

Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet

Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.

September 28, 2007
Case	Court	Holding

In re JE Livestock, Inc. (DBN Subscription Required)	10th CIr. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not err in refusing to accept a debtor's argument that the valuation of a creditor's collateral as reflected in the debtor's schedules is dispositive when the creditor has not filed a proof of claim.
Al Perry Enters., Inc. v. Appalachian Fuels, LLC (DBN Subscription Required)	6th Cir.	In a breach of contract action arising from a bankruptcy court approved sale of the assets and assumption of the executory contracts of a bankrupt company, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed as: 1) plaintiff failed to make its claim for commissions required by a contract with the debtor in the bankruptcy court, and thus its claim was barred unless the obligation was expressly assumed by defendant; and 2) defendant did not expressly assume the debtor's obligation to pay commissions to plaintiff.

September 27, 2007
Case	Court	Holding

In re Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (DBN Subscription Required)	9th Cir. BAP	§ 303(i) liability is joint and several. A debtor need not join all petitioners in a request for a § 303(i) award. Unless the court makes a specific apportionment, a petitioner is entitled seek contribution from other jointly and severally liable petitioners who were not joined in the debtor’s motion.
In re Onubah (DBN Subscription Required)	9th Cir. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when surcharging the debtor’s exemptions.
In re Urban (DBN Subscription Required)	9th Cir. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not err in rejecting a Chapter 13 Trustee’s challenge to the constitutionality of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)2 and overruling the Trustee’s objection to the Debtor’s exemption claims based on State law.
In re Rodriguez (DBN Subscription Required)	9th Cir. BAP	Following a minority position, the Court holds that the hanging paragraph of section 1325 does not allow a chapter 13 debtor to surrender, through a plan, a 910 vehicle in full satisfaction of the indebtedness remaining on it
In re Brown & Cole Stores, LLC (DBN Subscription Required)	9th Cir. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not err in granting section 503(b)(9) administrative priority ("20-day goods") to a claim that may also be secured, but it did err in denying the debtor's claim of setoff.

September 26, 2007
Case	Court	Holding

In re Adelphia Communications Corp. (DBN Subscription Required)	Bankr. SDNY	A creditor's contention that a limited partner is liable for a partnership's debts as a de facto general partner is not defeated by the creditor's knowledge of the limited partner's legal status as a "limited" partner. Only the limited partner’s conduct is relevant because the statute specifically directs in determining a third party’s reasonable belief, the analysis must be “based upon the limited partner’s conduct.

September 25, 2007
Case	Court	Holding

In re Frederickson (DBN Subscription Required)	8th Cir. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not err in holding that, to obtain confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, an "above-median debtor" whose disposable income is negative when calculated per the statutory requirements need not propose a plan that runs five years
In re Morgan (DBN Subscription Required)	8th Cir. BAP	The bankruptcy court did not err in removing a Chapter 13 trustee who disbursed estate funds without Court permission and in a manner inconsistent with the confirmed plan, and who acted to protect her own interests.

September 24, 2007
Case	Court	Holding

In re Healthcentral.com
(DBN Subscription Required)

9th Cir.

Where an avoidance defendant with a valid 7th Amendment right to a jury trial demands a jury, the bankruptcy court does not err in retaining jurisdiction over pre-trial matters, including summary judgment motions.

A local bankruptcy court rule which results in the automatic withdrawal of the reference upon a jury demand is invalid as it alters the requirement that only a district judge can withdraw the reference.