15bk31790, 16ap00004
Upon the adversary plaintiff’s complaint for determination of nondischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), held: the plaintiff has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor owed a debt to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff also failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged debt was obtained through false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.  As a result, the debtor will not be denied a discharge of the alleged debt.  Judgment is entered in favor of the debtor on the complaint.

16bk09485
Upon a debtor’s motion for rule to show cause on alleged violations of the automatic stay, held: The debtor has established the requisite grounds for relief arising from the alleged stay violations only as it relates to creditor’s postconversion conduct. The creditor, the debtor’s preconversion bankruptcy counsel, did not violate the automatic stay by attempting to collect on unpaid postpetition fees in another forum during the pendency of the matter prior to conversion. Upon conversion to chapter 13, however, the preconversion fees were treated as prepetition ones and thus the continuation of the collection action violated the automatic stay. The motion is, therefore, GRANTED in part, DENIED in part and CONTINUED in part for a later hearing on additional actual damages.

14bk14023, 16ap00387
Upon the U.S. trustee’s complaint seeking to deny discharge for the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), wherein the U.S. trustee alleged that the debtor failed to disclose certain assets on her bankruptcy petition, held: The U.S. trustee has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor acted with fraudulent intent when failing to disclose certain assets on her bankruptcy petition. As a result, the debtor will not be denied a discharge on the grounds alleged. Judgment is entered in favor of the debtor.

15bk32968
Upon the adversary defendants’ motion for leave to file counterclaims against the liquidating trustee, held:  The Barton doctrine, which requires a party to seek leave to file claims against a trustee in a bankruptcy case, is inapplicable when the claims are brought in an adversary proceeding in the appointing court.  Therefore, the motion for leave to file counterclaims is DENIED as unnecessary.

15 B 26544
Upon the United States Trustee’s motion for sanctions brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105, held:  The United States Trustee has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the need to address the circumstances discussed herein in a proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 105.  The motion is granted and counsel is sanctioned in the matter set forth herein.

17 B 03148
Upon the application for administrative expense brought by prepetition assignee for the benefit of creditors on behalf of its counsel, held: The assignee is entitled to compensation for its counsel under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4), the provision affording administrative expenses for professional services rendered for a superseded custodian. Upon application of the standards relating thereto, the application is, therefore, GRANTED in the manner set forth herein.

16 B 36934
Upon the motion for civil contempt brought by a creditor, alleging that the debtor and debtor’s manager violated bankruptcy court orders by transferring property of the bankruptcy estate without court authority, held: The movant has established under section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code clear and convincing evidence of civil contempt by the debtor and the debtor’s manager by proving that the nonmoving parties knowingly violated court orders. The motion is, therefore, GRANTED.

17 B 18368
Upon the application of the debtor’s counsel under the court’s flat fee agreement, wherein the debtor’s counsel filed a form chapter 13 plan with a modification to the priority distributions of creditors to elevate the priority of counsel’s payments, held:  The debtor’s counsel has violated the rules applicable to disclosure regarding agreements pertaining to its own compensation and, therefore, no longer qualifies to seek the flat fee.  The application is DENIED in part; specifically, counsel’s compensation is reduced as a sanction for failure to disclose the agreement.  The application is also continued with respect to a further determination regarding reasonableness.

17 B 27961
Upon the application of the debtor’s counsel under the court’s flat fee agreement, wherein the debtor’s counsel filed a form chapter 13 plan with a modification to the priority distributions of creditors to elevate the priority of counsel’s payments, held:  The debtor’s counsel has violated the rules applicable to disclosure regarding agreements pertaining to its own compensation and, therefore, no longer qualifies to seek the flat fee.  The application is DENIED in part; specifically, counsel’s compensation is reduced as a sanction for failure to disclose the agreement.  The application is also continued with respect to a further determination regarding reasonableness.

17 B 10230
Upon the application of a state court-appointed receiver for allowance and payment of administrative expenses, held:  The receiver has established that, on the petition date, it was a custodian for the purposes of payment under 11 U.S.C. § 543(c)(2) and priority of payment under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(E), and thus is entitled to assert a claim under both provisions.  As the receiver seeks payment from estate assets, the court applies the standard set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(E).  However, the receiver has not yet established that its claim meets that statute’s standards.  As a result, the receiver’s application is set for further hearing.

17 B 03148
Upon the application for administrative expense brought by a party to whom a prepetition assignee of the debtor’s assets for the benefit of creditors became obligated, held: while the movant is not entitled to seek reimbursement under the provision affording custodians administrative expenses, the movant is entitled to protection as a party to whom a custodian became obligated.  The court sets such protection as a right to expense reimbursement from the estate with administrative priority under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).  The application is, therefore, GRANTED.

17 B 10230, 17 A 00401
Upon the motions of two adversary defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, held:  The complaint states a plausible claim for declaratory judgment of the plaintiff’s interest, as prepetition receiver of property of the estate, in such property.  As a result, each motion is DENIED.Upon the motions of two adversary defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, held:  The complaint states a plausible claim for declaratory judgment of the plaintiff’s interest, as prepetition receiver of property of the estate, in such property.  As a result, each motion is DENIED.

17 B 12405
Upon a tax purchaser’s motion for relief from stay in a chapter 13 case, arguing that the expiration of the state-law period for redeeming taxes prior to the debtor filing for bankruptcy case gives cause to modify the stay, held: The tax purchaser has not established the necessary elements of section 362(d)(1) or (d)(2) to be granted relief from stay. Because the tax purchaser has not obtained a tax deed, under Illinois law, the debtor remains the owner of the underlying real property even though the redemption period has expired prior to the commencement of the debtor’s case. The debtor therefore has the right to attempt to treat the tax purchaser’s claim and the debtor’s property in a chapter 13 plan. The existence of that right, under the facts at bar, trumps the tax purchaser’s desire to bolster its claim postpetition by acts proscribed by the automatic stay. The motion for relief from stay is, therefore, DENIED.

15 A 00819, 14 B 17886
Upon the chapter 7 trustee’s complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) seeking to sell all interests in real property held in a living trust in which the estate also has an interest, held: The trustee has established each element of section 363(h) to sell the real property free of the other interests therein. Therefore, judgment will be rendered in favor of the trustee and the trustee is authorized to sell the property.

17 B 05030
Upon the motion of a debtor statutorily without automatic stay protection to enforce the co-debtor stay, held: The debtor has standing to enforce the co-debtor stay regardless of whether or not she is protected by the automatic stay. As the postpetition judicial sale violated the co-debtor stay, the sale is void. The debtor has, however, failed to demonstrate an entitlement to damages. As a result, the debtor’s motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks to have the sale and subsequent acts related thereto determined to be void but, in all other respects, is DENIED.

15 B 32968,16 A 00019

Upon the “no evidence” motion for summary judgment brought by Associated Bank, National Association, held: The movant has not established grounds for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 as it has not established the absence of genuine issue of material fact in dispute.  There is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the debtors’ solvency on the date they closed a loan with the movant, and movant is therefore not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The motion is, therefore, DENIED.

14 B 14023, 16 A 00387
The matter before the court is whether, at the request of the debtor, the court should stay an adversary proceeding, brought by the United States Trustee, seeking a denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. The debtor argues that the existence of parallel criminal investigations means that continuing the adversary is imprudent, as that might subject her to conflicting choices—namely to invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and face possible negative inferences arising therefrom, or to defend the adversary complaint and risk information therein being used in a criminal indictment. Held: In light of there being no actual pending criminal proceeding, the relevant standards as applied to the facts herein as they presently exist weigh in favor of continuing with the adversary. The motion to stay is, therefore, DENIED without prejudice.

08 B 10095
Upon the Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Enforcing Confirmation Order; (II) Directing Dismissal of State Court Claims; (III) Awarding Damages; and (IV) Granting Related Relief, brought by successor to the purchaser of assets in the above-captioned bankruptcy cases, held:  The movant has established that the claims brought in the state court actions are precluded by the confirmation order entered in this case.  The motion is, therefore, GRANTED as set forth in the attached Memorandum Decision.  A separate hearing on damages will follow.

15 B 32968
Upon the application from a class of former employees seeking allowance of an administrative expense claim for being terminated by the debtors in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases without notice as required by federal law and the liquidating trustee’s objection thereto, held: Despite the liquidating trustee’s claim that the debtors were liquidating and thus were excepted from the federal notice requirement, notice was required. As a result, the federal termination period applies and the damages relating thereto are postpetition damages. As a result, the application is GRANTED. The terminated employees’ administrative claim is allowed in an amount to be determined at a later hearing.

11 B 38875, 12 A 00155
Upon remand from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reinstating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, held:  The plaintiff has established grounds for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.  The debtor’s admissions establish that the debt she owed to the plaintiff arose when she, as trustee for an express trust, misappropriated funds from the trust to the detriment of the plaintiff, a beneficiary of the trust.  Such debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).  The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is, therefore, GRANTED as to the statutory elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and all alternative counts are mooted thereby.  The court abstains from hearing the only remaining aspect of the complaint—the value of the plaintiff’s claim.