Opinions

The District of Northern Illinois offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2013, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Subscribe to All Opinions

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

In re Ace Track Co., Ltd.
September 13, 2016

15 B 13819
Upon the Amended Motion for Order Granting Protection under 11 U.S.C. § 1522, brought by a creditor in the above-captioned chapter 15 case, held:  The motion raises serious concerns regarding the propriety of actions purportedly taken by the debtor in the chapter 15 case with respect to assets in the United States.  However, the motion is predicated on section 1522 of the Bankruptcy Code, which is inapplicable, and appears to seek no relief other than by declaration of the extent of the law.  As a result, insofar as the Memorandum Decision clarifies the extent of the law, the motion is GRANTED.  Otherwise, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

16 B 05364
On the motion of creditor and contract counterparty seeking an order of this court compelling the contractual performance of debtor in foreign proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(4), held:  While, pursuant to the terms of the recognition order, 11 U.S.C. § 365 applies in the foreign proceeding, the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(4) is no different in such circumstances than it would be in a case under another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code.  Such application requires only such performance as provided in the contract, and the relief requested by movant is not provided for in the contract.  The motion is, therefore, DENIED.

11 B 38307, 14 A 00106
Upon the Chapter 7 Trustee’s adversary complaint under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(d)(1) and (2), wherein the Chapter 7 Trustee seeks to revoke the debtor’s discharge as a result of, respectively, alleged failures to disclose a prepetition property interest and to disclose and turnover to the Trustee property of the estate acquired by the Debtor postpetition, held: Given the timing of the Complaint, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the Chapter 7 Trustee’s 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) prepetition property claim.  As to the 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2) postpetition property claim, the debtor acquired property of the estate within the applicable postpetition period but failed to both report and surrender all of that property to the Trustee.  The debtor’s discharge must, therefore, be revoked pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2).

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

 15 B 37632
Seventeen days after the Debtors modified their confirmed Chapter 13 plan the Trustee asked to have their case dismissed on term of plan grounds because it would take 86 months to complete plan payments. The court denied the motion ruling that the court can not confirm a plan projected to last for more than sixty months as limited by Bankruptcy Code sections 1322(d)(1)-(2) and 1329(c) but that dismissal is not mandated if a debtor needs a reasonable period of time to cure an arrearage incurred during the plan term.

14 B 44983
This is Debtor 401 Properties Limited Partnership's second Chapter 11 case.  Its first Chapter 11 case was found to have been filed in bad faith and dismissed on August 16, 2010 - case number 10 B 28114. The court found that the second case was also filed in bad faith. The Debtor's principals Leon Greenblatt and Andrew Jahelka (as well as its former general partner's representative Michael Horrell) are using the bankruptcy system to wage a battle for control of the Debtor, rather than the appropriate bankruptcy purposes of maximizing recoveries to creditors and maintaining a going concern.

15 B 013904, 15 A 00568
In this case a former spouse has asked that certain debts/obligations of a Chapter 7 Debtor established in a Dissolution of Marriage Judgment be held to be not dischargeable under Sections 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Court found that the Temporary Spousal Support, Health Care, Pension and Real Estate Tax and Assessments obligations are not dischargeable domestic support obligations.  A fine for noncompliance with discovery obligations was held to be not in the nature of support and for that reason is dischargeable.  The state court judgment reserved ruling on attorney's fees.  When that issue gets resolved this Court will determine whether that obligation can be discharged.

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

15 B 05807, 15 A 00337

Judge Janet S. Baer

15 B 05304, 15 A 00812
The Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy case of the Debtor, seeking a determination that a debt owed to the Plaintiff by the Debtor in connection with her car is not dischargeable and that the Debtor is not entitled to a discharge.  The car in question was impounded by the City of Chicago three times, the third time post-petition.  Experiencing financial difficulties and having no money to either repair and recover the car or get it towed from the impound lot, the Debtor filed an amended chapter 13 plan which provided for surrender of the car to the Plaintiff in full satisfaction of its claim.  The Plaintiff filed an objection to confirmation, arguing that surrender was not possible because the Debtor was not in possession of the car.  While the objection was pending, the title to the car was transferred from the Debtor’s name to a company in Illinois and then, later, two more times to other entities.  Subsequently, the Debtor converted her case to a case under chapter 7.  In its complaint, the Plaintiff argued that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) because the Debtor abandoned the car, knowing that it would be disposed of, and that her lack of action was willful and malicious in that it caused a total loss to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff argued, similarly, that the Debtor is not entitled to a discharge under § 727(a)(2) because she intended to hinder, delay, and defraud the Plaintiff by “refusing” to retrieve the car from the impound lot.  The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the Debtor’s actions were either willful or malicious as required by § 523(a)(6).  The Court further found that the Plaintiff did not prove that the Debtor intended to hinder, delay, or defraud the Plaintiff for purposes of § 727(a)(2).  Accordingly, the Court held that the debt at issue is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6) and that the Debtor is entitled to her discharge.

Chief Judge Bruce W. Black

Pages