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 Carol A. Doyle

Judge Pamela S. Hollis

In Re: Braude Jewelry Corp.
September 30, 2005

00 B 04596

Braude Jewelry filed chapter 11 and successfully confirmed its plan, including assumption of two leases. Within a year, Reorganized Braude filed a new liquidating chapter 11. After accomplishing certain actions -- including rejecting those assumed leases -- Braude II was dismissed. Meanwhile, the UST moved to convert Braude I to Chapter 7 and a trustee was appointed. The landlords whose leases were assumed in Braude I and rejected in Braude II filed claims in Braude I, seeking administrative priority for the claims arising from the breach of their leases. The IRS also filed a claim in Braude I, seeking allowance of a claim based on penalties for unpaid withholding and FICA taxes incurred during Braude II's post-petition business operations. The Braude I trustee filed an omnibus objection to claims. Held: Objections overruled and (1) landlords' claims allowed with administrative priority and (2) IRS claim allowed as a priority unsecured claim.

Chief Judge Bruce W. Black

05 B 01726, 05 A 01282
2005 WL 2386237

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

In re Repurchase Corp.
September 7, 2005

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

In re Karissa S. Blair
August 26, 2005

03 B 43122, 03 A 04824

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

05 B 13874

In re Otha Isaac Special Note: two related, successive opinions regarding Chapter 13 plan confirmation The holder of mortgages on three separate parcels of property owned by the debtor objected to confirmation of her chapter 13 plan because it incorrectly listed the amount of the arrears, failed to provide for the payment of property taxes and insurance premiums, failed to correctly list the monthly mortgage payments coming due during the term of the plan, and failed to make provisions for a balloon payment. Aside from the debtor’s willingness to correct discrepancies in the plan, the debtor argued that her plan was feasible because the balloon payment would be satisfied when due by either refinancing the mortgage or selling the property. The plan would also provide that the automatic stay would automatically be modified if the balloon payment was not made according to these terms. The court found the debtor’s plan to be unfeasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(6) because its success hinged upon the occurrence of a speculative and contingent event in the distant future.