New Cases For the Week of November 2, 2009 - November 6, 2009

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

Click here to search prior New Opinion summaries.

 

November 6, 2009

Case

Court

Holding

Ogle, Trustee v. Fidelity & Trust Company of Marylnad
(DBN)
2nd Cir. The Bankruptcy Code does not bar unsecured claims for post-petition attorney fees in connection with pre-petition unsecured claims.
     
November 5, 2009

Case

Court

Holding

In re Martinez
(DBN)
9th Cir. BAP Where a Ch. 13 debtor strips a wholly-unsecured junior lien on his residence, he cannot claim the contractual payments due on account of such lien as a deduction on the means test.
     
November 4, 2009

Case

Court

Holding

In re Paige
(DBN)
10th Cir. Where it is clear that proponents of competing plans are willing to pay 100% of claims (ion order to obtain an estate asset), confirmation and substantial consummation of one of the plans does not moot an appeal of the confirmation order, particularly where there are troubling allegations of bad-faith dealings between the debtor, the successful plan proponent, and the trustee, and of a lack of disinterestedness on the part of the trustee.
     
November 3, 2009

Case

Court

Holding

Hamilton v. Lanning
(DBN)
S. Ct. Petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether, in calculating the debtor's 'projected disposable income' during the plan period, the bankruptcy court may consider evidence suggesting that the debtor's income or expenses during that period are likely to be different from her income or expenses during the pre-filing period
     
November 2, 2009

Case

Court

Holding

In re ProEducation International, Inc.
(DBN)
5th Cir. In an appeal from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order disqualifying counsel for a creditor, the order is reversed where: 1) the bankruptcy court should have considered counsel's evidence of his lack of involvement with the debtor while at his prior law firm in making its decision; and 2) counsel presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he did not operate under a conflict of interest when he undertook the representation of creditor.
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2009  [BKINFORMATION.COM]. All rights reserved.