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

09 B 39937, 11 A 02236
Upon the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 Plan Administrator’s adversary proceeding, seeking to avoid and recover as fraudulent transfers lease payments transferred from the Debtor to the Defendant that purportedly were part of fraudulent scheme, held: (i) the Defendant could not assert res judicata challenge to adequacy of confirmed plan’s reservation clause; (ii) the plan’s reservation clause effectively preserved fraudulent transfer claims asserted pursuant to state law under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b); but (iii) the Plan Administrator failed to adequately allege Ponzi-type scheme and to explain how challenged payments were used to further alleged scheme and harm the Debtor’s other creditors.  Motion to dismiss granted.

09 B 39937, 11 A 02200
Upon the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 Plan Administrator’s adversary proceeding, seeking to avoid and recover as fraudulent transfers lease payments transferred from the Debtor to the Defendant that purportedly were part of fraudulent scheme, held: (i) allegations in complaint did not establish “good faith and for value” defense on face of complaint for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 548(c); (ii) the Plan Administrator did not have to identify a specific unsecured “triggering creditor” that was in existence at time of challenged transfers in order to state cause of action to avoid transfers as actually fraudulent to creditors under Illinois law, in exercise of 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) strong-arm powers due to scores of unsecured claimants; but (iii) the Plan Administrator failed to adequately allege Ponzi-type scheme and to explain how challenged payments were used to further alleged scheme and harm the Debtor’s other creditors.  Motion to dismiss granted.

10 B 10717, 10 A 01418
Upon the Debtor’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees against the Plaintiff for continued prosecution of nondischargeability adversary despite failing to allege sufficient grounds in an amended complaint, held: although the Plaintiff violated Rule 9011 and did not act reasonably in commencing and continuing this adversary proceeding, the Debtor’s motion for sanctions failed to set forth the basis for her request for sanctions as it lacked the requisite legal arguments and citations to relevant facts to support the Debtor’s request for sanctions.  Motion for sanctions denied.

In re LaVergne Briggs
August 30, 2012

12 B 14853
Upon the Mortgagee’s motion for relief from stay and, in the alternative, to dismiss, held: (i) the standards have been met to grant relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) since the Debtor has not provided any evidence as to adequate protection other than the Debtor’s plan payments to the Chapter 13 Trustee, including a series of late payments made on the date of the evidentiary hearing; (ii) the Debtor had filed a total of ten individual bankruptcy cases during a period of seven years, generally timed to precede a state court foreclosure action or the appointment of a receiver; and (iii) grounds exists for the court to enter an in rem relief order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4), as the Debtor’s petition for bankruptcy was found to be part of a scheme to delay or hinder the mortgagee’s collection efforts.  Motion for relief from stay with in rem relief granted.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

In re Sweports, Ltd.
August 15, 2012

12 B 14254

12 A 00338

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

In re 211 Waukegan LLC
September 18, 2012

11 B 13104

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

Attorney Daniel A. Zazove and the Perkins Coie law firm filed a Motion and Application for Allowance of Compensation as Debtor's Attorney. Chapter 7 Trustee Steven Radtke and Robert Stein, a defendant in a related adversary, objected to Counsel’s Application for Compensation, arguing that subsequent to the entry of the retention order, Zazove and Perkins Coie received other compensation from an Assignee or Fifth Third Bank without leave of court as required by 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1). Mr. Zazove argued that those funds were for services rendered to the Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors, not the bankruptcy estate. Over Stein’s objection, the Court granted Counsel’s application for compensation. In the spirit of abstention, the Court declined to require the Assignee to submit to bankruptcy court jurisdiction after he was excused from the Section 543 delivery requirement. Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)(1) governs compensation to professionals retained by a bankruptcy estate; it has no application to the payment of an assignee’s attorney for legal services rendered in the operation of an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Pages