Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

middle district of tennessee

In re Arnold

Ruling
Form 22C, allowing deduction of business expenses in determining "cuurent income" is erroneous.
Procedural posture

Chapter 13 trustee objected to the debtors'three-year, zero percent plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Arnold Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on July 03, 2007 , LexisNexis #1107-092

In re Fileccia

Ruling
Debtor's failure to provide tax returns required dismissal despite potential for abuse by dishonest debtor.
Procedural posture

A debtor filed a motion to dismiss her chapter 7 bankruptcy case for failure to provide tax returns to the trustee, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 521(e)(2). The trustee and a creditor objected to the motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Fileccia Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on June 06, 2007 , LexisNexis #0807-012

Freeland v. Edison Corp. (In re Consol. Indus. Corp.)

Ruling
Bankruptcy court properly avoided $30 million in dividend notes held by corporate debtor's parent.
Procedural posture

A corporate debtor filed an adversary proceeding against defendants, its corporate parent, a holding company, and five persons. The bankruptcy trustee was thereafter substituted as plaintiff. The parent appealed after the bankruptcy court entered a judgment against it. Although the bankruptcy court proposed to enter judgment in their favor, remaining defendants filed objections to its findings and holdings pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Freeland v. Edison Corp. (In re Consol. Indus. Corp.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on October 31, 2006 , LexisNexis #1206-095

XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. James River Coal Co. (In re James River Coal Co.)

Ruling
Bankruptcy court did not err in finding that sureties were not entitled to administrative expense claim for premiums accrued on prepetition bonds.
Procedural posture

Appellant sureties challenged an order from a United States bankruptcy court, which granted a summary judgment motion filed by appellees, a debtor and several of its subsidiaries, and denied the sureties'motion to reconsider the denial of their application for allowance of an administrative claim. In their application, the sureties sought allowance of the premiums accrued on certain bonds as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. James River Coal Co. (In re James River Coal Co.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on August 31, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-054