You are here
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox - Opinions
Description | Date Issued |
---|---|
In re Erin V. McDougal; Tim Grover and Katherine Grover v. Erin V. McDougal 16 B 8776, 16 A 00356 |
08/02/2017 |
In re EHC, LCC 15 B 40866 |
04/25/2017 |
In re Richard Sharif 09 B 5868 |
02/16/2017 |
In re 1016 West Hollywood, LLC. In re The 800 Building 14 B 02696, 15 B 17314 |
01/18/2017 |
In re Jerome Sims, Jr. 16 B 04589 |
01/10/2017 |
In re EHC, LLC 15 B 40866 |
01/06/2017 |
In re Gloria LaFaye Anderson 14 B 11526 |
11/18/2016 |
In re Thomas L. Handy and Mary Handy 15 B 37632 |
08/31/2016 |
In re 401 Properties Limited Partnership 14 B 44983 |
08/10/2016 |
Tahira Sharf (Ali) v. Zahir Uddin Sharf (In re Zahir Uddin Sharf) 15 B 013904, 15 A 00568 |
06/20/2016 |
In re: Richard Sharif, Ragda Sharifeh (as successor trustee/beneficiary of the Soad Wattar Revocable Living Trust) v. Horace Fox, Jr., Chapter 7 Trustee, Richard Sharif (as former Trustee of the Soad Wattar Revocable Living Trust), et al. 09 B 05868, 12 A 00430 Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a 2010 order that this Court entered which found that a Trust that the Debtor (Sharif) administered was the Debtor’s alter-ego and therefore its assets were property of his bankruptcy estate. Since the 2010 order, the Debtor, the Debtor’s sister, and, most recently, the Debtor’s other sister have made no less than 10 attempts to reclaim the Trust assets. These attempts have been well documented in over 180 pages of orders and opinions from this Court, all of which have denied their requests. Despite all of this, two of the Debtor's sisters recently brought motions seeking to recover the Trust assets. This opinion outlines the seven-year history of the parties' efforts to reclaim the Trust assets. This latest attempt also failed. This opinion includes an Order to Show Cause why the sisters, and their attorney, Maurice J. Salem, should not be sanctioned under Rule 9011 for bringing improper and frivolous motions. |
04/26/2016 |
In re Oswaldo Rodriguez; AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oswaldo Rodriguez 14 B 41542, 15 A 00009 |
03/10/2016 |
In re 401 Properties Limited Partnership; Rock Solid Gelt Limited Partnership and Legacy Re, Ltd. v. 401 Properties Limited Partnership 14 B 44983, 15 A 00499 |
02/18/2016 |
In re LJBV LTD 15 B 35961 |
01/28/2016 |
In re Richard Sharif 09 B 05868 On August 5, 2010, the court ordered two financial institutions to turn over to the Chapter 7 Trustee funds held in certain investment accounts and directed the Debtor to account for and turn over to the Trustee all interests and accounts concerning him or the Soad Wattar Revocable Living Trust (the “2010 Order”). The court also ordered the Debtor and his sisters not to interfere with and to cease any act to exercise control over property of the bankruptcy estate, including life insurance policies. The movant now argues that the 2010 Order is void, seeking redress pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), made applicable under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024. The Court denied the motion to vacate the 2010 Order. The movant did not provide evidence that it is a party that was entitled to notice of the 2010 Motion or that the property dealt with in the 2010 Order belonged to a testamentary estate. The will submitted to the Court transferred all of the decedent’s property to a revocable living trust which was held, pursuant to a default judgment in Wellness International Network Ltd. a/k/a WIN, et al. v. Sharif, adversary proceeding no. 09-00770, in 2010, to be the alter ego of the Debtor. The Court’s finding that the trust was the Debtor’s alter ego was appealed to the District Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. |
11/25/2015 |
In re John F. Walsh 08 B 06424 Freeborn & Peters LLP (“Freeborn”) represented the debtor in a pre-petition state court action for defamation brought by a real estate developer against the debtor and two local newspaper organizations in late 2007. The case was litigated and appealed up to the Illinois Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the trial court to award the debtor reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Ultimately, the trial court entered judgment in the amount of $339,010 in favor of the debtor and against the developer. Freeborn proceeded to attempt collection on the judgment. Unbeknownst to Freeborn, six months after the lawsuit was filed, the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief, converted his case to Chapter 7 before the judgment had been entered and eventually received a discharge. However, the debtor failed to disclose the state court lawsuit in both his Schedules and his Statement of Financial Affairs. The developer discovered the debtor’s bankruptcy filing and moved to have the judgment vacated on the basis that the debtor was judicially estopped from enforcing the judgment because he failed to disclose the lawsuit in his bankruptcy case. Rather than contact the Chapter 7 Trustee and get authorization to be employed as special counsel, Freeborn continued to litigate the case and actually argued that the judgment was not property of the bankruptcy estate. After the developer appealed the state trial court’s denial of its motion to vacate, its counsel notified the Trustee of the civil case. The debtor’s bankruptcy case was reopened. More than a year later, in 2014, the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and determined that the debtor’s claim against the developer belonged to the Trustee and the judgment was an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Only then did Freeborn file an application for fees and reimbursement of expenses related to services performed during the debtor’s Chapter 13 case and requested that such fees and expenses be allowed as a secured administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) or (b)(2). Both the Chapter 7 Trustee and the condominium association, which had indemnified the debtor for legal fees, objected to the fee application. After a hearing, the Court denied Freeborn’s fee application and request for an administrative claim because it did not secure approval of its employment before performing services. |
09/24/2015 |
In re Lake Dearborn, LLC, et al. 13 B 36813 As of the petition date, Debtor Dearborn Retail, LLC, owned the food court space located at 201 N. Clark Street in Chicago. Subsequently, Garvey Court, LLC, an entity controlled by Bighorn Capital, Inc. acquired the property. The Court granted Debtor’s motion, in connection with the acquisition, to reject the leases of eighteen food court tenants. As part of the rejection order, Garvey Court agreed to assume the obligations, if any, to pay damages and/or termination fees that resulted from such rejections. Neither Debtor nor Garvey Court issued a notice of early termination pursuant to the leases. Under the terms of an agreed claims resolution order, an evidentiary hearing was held to determine the amount of damages owed to tenants whose claims were not settled. Nine of the eighteen tenants filed proofs of claim, to which Garvey Court objected; one tenant settled before the hearing. The claimants generally sought damages for build-out costs, replacement rent, advertising/promotion for the new locations, moving costs, return of security deposits and attorneys’ fees. Garvey Court argued that the claimants could not recover any damages because of their failure to pay rent and the resulting termination of the leases because of such default. Alternatively, Garvey Court generally sought to limit the build-out and replacement rent damages to only a two-year period pursuant to the early termination provision. The Court found that the rejection damages were not limited by the early termination provision because it was never triggered. The Court also found that build-out costs, replacement rent, etc. were the proximate result of the lease rejections. Individual orders were entered for each tenant.
|
07/14/2015 |
In re Al-Haroon Husain 14 MP 90007 Mr. Husain will be permanently suspended from the practice of law before the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois due to the nature and extent of his misconduct. The suspension is effective July 31, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Husain is also ordered to refund the fees received from the clients listed in the Memorandum Opinion. The Order will be reported to the Executive Committee of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. |
07/09/2015 |
In re MCK Millennium Centre Parking, LLC; Gina B. Krol, not individually but as the duly assigned Chapter 7 Trustee v. Key Bank National Association, et al. 12 B 24676, 14 A 00392 Because the parties did not consent to the Court’s entry of a final order on the fraudulent transfer claims, the Court submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033. On the preferential transfer claim, the Court determined that it had both statutory and constitutional authority to enter its order dismissing the claim, with prejudice. The Court recommended dismissal of the actual fraud transfer claims without prejudice, because those claims were not plead with specificity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). |
04/30/2015 |
In re Michael Bahary & Steven Bahary Partnership 11 B 41826 Pursuant to the Confirmed Plan, the Reorganized Debtor surrendered the Grand Avenue Property to Banco Popular, its mortgagee, by giving it a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure to satisfy Banco Popular’s secured claim. Napleton was not scheduled as a creditor in the Reorganized Debtor’s bankruptcy and did not have notice of it. The Court ruled that the transfer to the mortgagee was not subject to the Right of First Refusal which vested only if the Debtor, as Napleton's transferee, wanted to sell the property to a bona fide third party. The Debtor did not sell the property in issue; it surrendered collateral to a lienholder. In the April 1, 2015 Amended Memorandum Opinion, the Court declined to enter findings of contempt against Napleton and its attorney. |
04/01/2015 |