The court grants creditor’s motion to convert under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) where it finds cause in the form of, among other things, a continued diminution of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A).
Click here to view.
Honorable Patrick M. Flatley
The court denies relief to the Plaintiff under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) where the Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor’s omission from his bankruptcy schedules of an alleged interest in property was a knowingly false statement made with a fraudulent intent.
Debtor’s counsel’s supplemental application for $18,104.75 fees is granted in part. Counsel filed his supplemental application postconfirmation and sought compensation pursuant to his retainer agreement with the Debtor for work performed post-petition. After adjudging the supplemental request under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4), the court awards counsel supplemental fees in the amount of $10,862.85.
Plaintiffs' joint motion for summary judgment is denied. Summary judgment is inappropiate on Plaintiffs' complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and (6) where the record before the court evidences genuine disputes of material facts.
The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to abstain and remand. The court was not required to abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) because the proceeding could not be timely adjudicated in state court. Similarly, the factors considered for permissive abstention under § 1334(c)(1) weighed against abstention.
The Defendants' motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to vacate the court's order authorizing their employment by the bankruptcy estate is denied where the order is not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied where the bankruptcy estate was not divested of its interest in property of the estate based upon the Debtor claiming an exemption therein using "unknown" as the value of the claimed exemption.
The court denied Edward R. Kohout's motion to employ nunc pro tuncbecause he did not demonstrate that the delay in seeking court approval resulted from extraordinary circumstances. The court also found that Mr. Kohout violated 11 U.S.C. § 329 because he never filed a disclosure statement with the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(b). Based on Mr. Kohout's failure to comply with § 327 and § 329, the court ordered him to disgorge his entire fee.
John C. Scotchel, Jr., held a legally enforceable interest in the Falls Case contingent fee contract when he filed for bankruptcy relief. Because he did not render postpetition services that were necessary to obtain the contingent fee, the court found his entire fee was property of the bankruptcy estate.
The court grants General Corporation's motion for summary judgment on count II of the Trustee's complaint. The court finds that 11 U.S.C. § 546(a) bars the Trustee from commencing an action under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a).