Search Opinion

Harris v. Brown (In re Brown)

Before the court was movant chapter 7 trustee's motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c) against respondent, debtor's brother, who had a one-third interest in the assets and liabilities of debtor.
Ruling: 
Debtor's brother sanctioned for frivolous and mertiless filings.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Harris v. Brown (In re Brown). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on March 11,2008, LexisNexis #0408-139

Harris v. United States (In re Brown)

Plaintiff/movant trustee filed an adversary proceeding to determine the extent and validity of defendant United States' (acting through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) claim for taxes and for criminal restitution. Pending was the trustee's motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c). Respondent debtor did not file a response.
Ruling: 
Debtor sanctioned for repeated filing of frivolous, meritless, and harassing motions against trustee.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Harris v. United States (In re Brown). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on February 14,2008, LexisNexis #0308-105

In re Evergreen Sec. Ltd.

The debtor filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 seeking sanctions against respondents, two attorneys and their respective law firms. The central issues for determination were whether respondents presented and advocated a recusal motion in bad faith and, if they did, what sanctions were to be imposed against them.
Ruling: 
Attorneys and their firms sanctioned for filing and pursuing recusal motion in bad faith.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Evergreen Sec. Ltd.. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Commercial case opionion summary, case decided on January 02,2008, LexisNexis #0308-140