Bearingpoint liquidating trust dating usa planet
Impact: The court stated that the Supreme Court “has recently made clear that bankruptcy courts should refrain from impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Article III courts by entering judgments on state law claims involving non-debtor third parties.” The court ordered the cased closed and the file transferred to the district court.Background: A chapter 7 trustee brought an adversary proceeding against two entities allegedly hired to act as agents of the bankruptcy estate.The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion barred the claims.On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on narrower grounds, holding only that issue preclusion applied.So it should come as no surprise that the bankruptcy bar is abuzz following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 564 U. 2 (2011), holding that bankruptcy courts lack the constitutional authority to enter final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim. The answer to that question will be determined largely by how the lower courts interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling.With that in mind, the Weil Bankruptcy Blog is introducing a new periodic series: the Background: A former business partner of a chapter 7 debtor objected to discharge of his claim against the debtor under section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code because the debtor allegedly had committed fraud while acting in a fiduciary for a bankruptcy judge to determine allowance of a claim after finding it non-dischargeable and enter judgment in favor of the creditor on account of such claims, the bankruptcy court questioned whether it had authority to follow this practice post-.
One Seventh Circuit decision, however, came to the opposite conclusion.
Ultimately, the court held that the bank had violated the automatic stay, but that the debtor failed to prove any damages making this in the words of the court “a case of ‘no harm, no foul.’”Background: A creditor brought an adversary proceeding to prevent the debtor from discharging a debt arising from a fight at a baseball game that led to the debtor pleading guilty to second degree assault and (after a lengthy civil litigation) entering into a settlement with the creditor.
The creditor alleged that the debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code because it arose as a result of “willful and malicious injury.” The debtor claimed he was acting in self defense.
Accordingly, it declined to enter a dollar judgment in favor of the creditor and limited its holding to a determination of the amount of debt found nondischargeable.
Note: The court reserved jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend the judgment within 28 days supported by briefs discussing Background: A debtor asserted counterclaims against a party that filed proofs of claim.
Search for bearingpoint liquidating trust:
The creditor also stated that it hoped that “the Judicial Conference of the United States will shortly recommend a revised standing order to be adopted by all federal courts.”Background: The trustee of a liquidating trust established under Bearing Point’s confirmed chapter 11 plan moved for an order granting limited relief from certain provisions of the plan and confirmation order.