Visitor No.
New Cases For the Week of July 31, 2000 - August 4, 2000
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM - The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet AND BKCLAIMS Marketplace - The Online Market For Bankruptcy Claims
Compilation copyright © 2000 [BKinformation.com]. All rights reserved.
August 4, 2000 |
||
|
Case |
Court |
Holding |
| Carter v. Rodgers | 11th Circuit | A debtor must
obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before initiating an action,
whether based on State or federal law, in district court when that
action is against the trustee or other bankruptcy-court-appointed
officer for acts done in the actor's official capacity.
The exception in 28 USC 959 (permitting suits against trustees without leave of court) applies only for the trustee's acts in "furtherance of a business." It does does not apply to suits against trustees for administering or liquidating the bankruptcy estate. |
August 3, 2000 |
||
|
Case |
Court |
Holding |
| In re Pace | E.D. Pa. | A declaratory
relief action against a State seeking a declaration that a discharge has
a stated effect against the State will not be dismissed on 11th
Amendment grounds where the State refuses to affirmatively acknowledge
the alleged effect of the discharge.
The threat that State officials will violate federal law (in this case, a bankruptcy discharge) in the future is sufficient to invoke the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity, even though the State claims to have abandoned its prior policy of disregarding discharges, (but it refuses to affirmatively acknowledge the binding effect of discharges). |
| In re Weiss | E.D. Pa. | When a taxing agency appeals a Chapter 7 order regarding the dischargeability of certain taxes, and the debtor converts the case to Chapter 13 during the pendency of the appeal, the bankruptcy court abuses its discretion by not lifting the stay and abating confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan until the appeal is resolved. |
August 2, 2000 |
||
|
Case |
Court |
Holding |
| In re Stangel | 5th Cir. | Relying on the
Supreme Court's recent standing holding in Hartford Underwriters Ins.
Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 120 S.Ct. 1942 (5/30/00), the Fifth
Circuit holds that a Chapter 13 debtor has no standing to seek avoidance
of a lien under 11 USC 545. Like section 506(c) (the statute at
issue in the Hartford case), the plain language of section 545 limits
standing to "the trustee," thus precluding use of the statute
by a debtor who is not vested with the powers of a trustee.
Although the 10-day appellate period is extended by the filing of a motion for new trial, it is not further extended by the filing of an amended motion for new trial filed after the first motion for new trial has been denied. |
| In re Birmingham-Nashville Express, Inc. | 6th Cir. | A claim for unpaid workers compensation insurance premiums is not entitled to priority under 11 USC 507(a)(4). |
| In re Mednet | BAP 9th Cir. | There is a
split in authority regarding the legal standard to be applied when
assessing the "benefit" required for allowance of an
administrative claim for professional services. One line of
authority requires that the "services were reasonably likely to
benefit the debtor' s estate, not whether counsel is able to show actual
benefit to the estate." (Second Circuit). Another line of
authority requires that "the work resulted in identifiable,
tangible, and material benefit to the bankruptcy estate." (Fifth
Circuit).
The Ninth Circuit BAP adopts the Second Circuit approach, holding that "The statute does not require that the services result in a material benefit to the estate in order for the professional to be compensated; the applicant must demonstrate only that the services were "reasonably likely" to benefit the estate at the time the services were rendered." In addition, a bankruptcy court must consider the following in awarding fees: (i) were the services authorized, (ii), were the services necessary or beneficial to the administration of the estate at the time they were rendered, (iii) are the services adequately documented, (iv) are the fees requested reasonable, taking into consideration the factors set forth in § 330(a)(3) and (v) did the professional exercise reasonable billing judgment? |
August 1, 2000 |
||
|
Case |
Court |
Holding |
| In
re McMullen Oil Co. (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in to view. Note that this is a large file and may require several seconds to download and view, even on a DSL or T1 link) |
Bankr. C.D. Cal. | A creditor's bank which accepts and honors postpetition third party checks made payable to the debtor and transferred to the creditor without endorsement by the debtor is liable to the bankruptcy estate in negligence if the checks are tendered to the creditor in satisfaction of a prepetition debt. The absence of the debtor's endorsement on the checks deprives the creditor's bank of holder in due course status, thus exposing the bank to the claims of the bankruptcy estate. |
|
July 31, 2000 |
||
|
Case |
Court |
Holding |
| Kucin
v. Devan (In re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises) |
D. Md. | A first day order stating that "the Debtor shall be permitted to make any unpaid pre-petition contributions to its Executive Deferred Compensation plan" and "the Debtors shall be permitted to honor and maintain the supplemental retirement agreements described in the Motion" does not transform executive deferred compensation claims ($100,000/year for life, beginning at age 65) arising under such agreements into administrative claims. |
| In
re Soler (need Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in to view) |
Bankr. Minn. | Discharge of a student loan on undue hardship grounds is determined at the time of discharge. Thus, in a Chapter 13 case, a debtor is not entitled to know in advance if, at the end of her plan, she will receive a discharge of student loan debts on undue hardship grounds. Such a ruling cannot be made until the time of discharge. |
Visitor No.
This page was last edited on 04/08/2002