Subscribe to All Opinions19 B 07692
The court converted the Chapter 11 case filed by Debtor Royalty Properties, LLC to Chapter 7, finding that it was filed in bad faith as a litigation tactic to delay a mortgage foreclosure case filed 10 years ago. The debt was incurred in 2006 to purchase its main asset, a 400-acre horse farm. No payments were ever made on the debt. The court also found that the Debtor was using its creditors’ collateral to farm and sell hemp/hemp seeds, a new business for which it had no experience, not to reorganize an existing business. The Debtor and its principals unsuccessfully sued its creditors, including the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois, in state and federal courts many times before it filed for bankruptcy protection. After the foreclosure case neared conclusion, two more lawsuits were filed against its creditors this year.
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.
Judge Jacqueline P. Cox
August 30, 2019
Judge Thomas M. Lynch
August 29, 2019
18-81847
Debtor’s objection to claim asserted by former tenants sustained in part and overruled in part. Claim for unjust enrichment based on Claimants’ contribution to purchase of property allowed; remainder of claim barred by the statute of frauds or the terms of the lease agreement and disallowed.
August 6, 2019
18-80357, 18-96014
Judgment entered in favor of Debtor on objection to discharge under § 523(a)(6) after finding that Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that the Debtor was liable for a debt for willful and malicious injury arising out of a motorcycle accident.
June 27, 2019
18-13341 (Western District of Wisconsin)
Debtor’s opposed first motion under section 1121 to extend the exclusivity periods to file and obtain acceptance of a chapter 11 plan of reorganization granted based in part on pending cross-motions for summary judgment in a preference action asserted to be fundamental to the Debtor’s formulation of a plan. Rejecting suggestion that litigation must be resolved before a plan can be proposed or creditors provided adequate information to decide whether to accept or reject it, here the litigation may have a drastic impact on assets available to fund reorganization and on the allocation of payments to creditors. Finding further that objector failed to show that the extension request was made for dilatory purposes or to obtain undue leverage or that creditors’ interests are not adequately protected.
Judge Carol A. Doyle
August 14, 2019
17 B 09308, 19 A 00154
Chief Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar
17 B 4034, 19 A 129
Judge Donald R. Cassling
Judge LaShonda A. Hunt
July 8, 2019
14bk33271, 14ap00859
Following trial on an adversary complaint objecting to dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523 (a)(6), the court held that the creditor failed to meet its burden of establishing that the defendant/debtor acted with intent to defraud or harm creditors.