In re Crescent Resources (July 22, 2011)
Issue: Does the Trust have authority and standing to pursue turnover claims under Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code? Also, does this Court have jurisdiction over these claims?
Holding: The Court rejects the Trust’s argument that Movant Duke lacks standing to bring this challenge. The Court finds that (1) the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization and related documents effectively transferred ownership of any attorney-held files owned by the Debtor to the Litigation Trust and (2) the Plan preserved turnover claims with language which was specific and unequivocal. Therefore, the Trust has standing to pursue the Turnover Claims and this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
In re Eggers (April 30, 2010)
Issue: Is the right of recoupment a claim under §101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code?
Holding: Second Motion for Relief from Stay granted in order to recoup, or alternatively, offset amounts awarded to the Creditors under a state court judgment signed and entered against royalties otherwise owed to the Debtor.
In re Save Our Springs (S.O.S.) Alliance, Inc. (August 11, 2008)
Issue: Is Debtor a “Small Business Debtor” as Defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5D) and is this case a “Small Business Case” as Defined in 11 § 101(5D) and/or should the Debtor be judicially and/or equitably estopped from denying that it is a small business debtor as originally claimed in this case?
Holding: The Court finds that the Debtor is a small business debtor, being judicially and equitably estopped at this stage of the case from changing that position.
In re Save Our Springs Alliance (April 14, 2008)
Issue: Whether (1) the deadline to obtain confirmation can or should be extended; (2) designation of vote was cast in bad faith, and (3) Plan should be confirmed or denied due to: gerrymandering by improper classification, lack of an impaired accepting class, best interest of creditors test not met, feasibility, discharge is not permissible where the plan in essence does not provide for the Debtor’s continuation in “business”, cramdown is not permissible where insider claims are not subordinated to payment in full of all other claims, lack of good faith?
Holding: The Court finds that the Motion to Extend Time should be Granted in part and Denied in part, the Vote Designation Motion should be Denied, and confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan should be Denied.