21 B 03680, 21 A 00106
Parent Petroleum, Inc. (“Parent”) filed an adversary complaint against debtor-defendant Amit Gauri, seeking both a determination that a debt owed to Parent by Gauri was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B) and denial of Gauri’s discharge under §§ 727(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). Parent subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to its claims under §§ 727(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7). Parent argued that, through the application of § 727(a)(7), Gauri’s discharge should be denied under the remaining subsections of § 727(a) primarily due to actions that Gauri took in relation to the bankruptcy of one of his companies, Black Dog Chicago, LLC (“BD Chicago”). During BD Chicago’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case, Gauri applied for PPP and EIDL loans on behalf of the company and three of its operating subsidiaries. On each of these loan applications, Gauri falsely attested that neither BD Chicago nor the applicant company was in bankruptcy. Once these loans were approved, Gauri transferred the resulting funds and concealed them from the Court and BD Chicago’s creditors. Based on these actions and others, the Court found that Gauri was not entitled to a discharge under §§ 727(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(7). As to Parent’s claim under § 727(a)(6), the Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Gauri refused to obey the case management procedures order entered in the BD Chicago bankruptcy case. Thus, the Court concluded that Parent was not entitled to summary judgment under § 727(a)(6).