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

Chief Judge Pamela S. Hollis

01 B 19852

Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss case where debtor would have to continue to make payments beyond 5 years in order to complete her plan. Held: Although the court cannot confirm or modify a plan which would extend beyond 5 years, the fact that payments will be made for more than 5 years does not per se require dismissal under 1307(c). With that in mind, the court considered the particular factual circumstances and determined that cause for dismissal did not exist under 1307(c). Motion to dismiss denied.

05 B 12554

Receiver appointed in District Court litigation sought authority to sell Chapter 11 Debtor's interest in a limited liability company to one of the LLC members. Third party objected and submitted an offer. Receiver changed tactics and filed a motion seeking approval of bid procedures. The LLC objected and engaged in extensive briefing with the third party over whether the LLC's Operating Agreement was an executory contract. Parties also disputed whether the right of first refusal held by the other members of the LLC was enforceable in bankruptcy. HELD: The Operating Agreement of this particular LLC is not an executory contract. The right of first refusal is neither an ipso facto clause nor a restraint on assignment, and is enforceable. The Receiver's motion for approval of bid procedures is granted.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

05 B 27545, 06 A 00412

Defendant corporation and its four shareholders moved to vacate a temporary restraining order and the appointment of a receiver. Movants argued that the court committed legal error in justifying the receivership by applying facts pertaining to the alleged misdeeds of the other three defendants and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a receiver because an appointment is a “noncore proceeding” that is merely “related to” the bankruptcy case in chief because all aspects of such appointment are governed by Illinois law. The court held that the appointment of an Illinois equity receiver was a core matter and the appointment of a limited receivership with oversight, auditing, and clearance authority was warranted to preserve value for whomever is ultimately entitled to it. The court additionally dissolved the TRO and concluded that grounds did not exist for preliminary injunctive relief.