New Cases For the Week of June 13, 2011 - June 17, 2011

 

June 17, 2011
In re Hoff
(DBN)
5th Cir. Where a debtor was the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust, but had an unexercised right to withdraw a percentage of the trust assets at the time he filed bankruptcy, the debtor's trustee could exercise the right of withdrawal.
In re: Dreier, LLP
(DBN)
Bankr. SD NY A preliminary forfeiture order entered in the Dreier case did not divest the bankruptcy estate's interest in all funds traceable to the forfeited account. Accordingly, the forfeiture order did not preclude the trustee from pursuing avoidance actions against profit recipients from the Ponzi scheme.
     
June 16, 2011
In re: Tweeter Opco
(DBN)
Bankr. DE A preference complaint which fails to describe the nature of the antecedent debt and identify the transferor fails to state a claim.
     
June 15, 2011
Murphey v. Lattimore, Black, Morgan & Cain, P.C.
(DBN)
MD TN When an unsecured creditors committee entered into a tolling agreement extending the time within which suit could be brought against an accounting firm, the agreement had the effect of extending the limitations period for any claims individually owned by unsecured creditors.
     
June 14, 2011
In re: Burival
(DBN)
8th Cir. The fact that the sale proceeds from a court-approved sale of the debtor's property turned out to be insufficient to satisfy the debtor's attorney's fees was not "newly discovered evidence" within the meaning of Rule 60.
In re: Kimball Hill, Inc
(DBN)
Bankr. ND IL

The language of section 1123(b)(3)(B) does not require "specific and unequivocal" language in a plan to retain claims belonging to the estate. A categorical description of claims is sufficient.

Where the text of a preference complaint creates internal ambiguities and inconsistencies about whether certain payments were made on account of antecedent debts owed by the debtor, the preference claim must be dismissed under Iqbal.

     
June 13, 2011
In re: Walter Nieves
(DBN)
4th Cir.

"Knowledge" for the purposes of 11 USC 550(b)(1) (no recovery from good faith mediate transferrees without knowledge), means actual knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the transferred property was voidable. Actual knowledge of voidability is not required.

"Good faith" is determined under an objective standard. Courts should analyze what the transferee "knew or should have known instead of examining the transferee's actual knowledge from a subjective standpoint. However, what the transferee should have known depends on what it actually knew, and not what it was charged with knowing on a theory of constructive notice. Thus, a transferee does not act in good faith when he has sufficient actual knowledge to place him on inquiry notice of the debtor's possible insolvency.

In re: Saguaro Ranch Development Corporation
(DBN)
Bankr. AZ

Although contractually-allowed post-petition attorneys fees can become part of an allowed claim, contractually-allowed post-petition interest cannot.

A court should not approve a plan if it depends on successful fulfillment of every underlying assumption of the debtor.

A debtor relying on indubitable equivalence for confirmation a debtor must demonstrate there is "no reasonable doubt" that its creditor will receive the full value of what it bargained for.

     
 
Copyright © 2011  [BKINFORMATION.COM]. All rights reserved.