Crescent Resources v. Burr (July 22, 2011)
Issue: Does the Plan of Reorganization “specifically and unequivocally” retain the causes of action alleged in the Complaint?
Holding: This Court finds that (1) the Plan preserved the claims made in the Complaint under Sections 544, 548, and 550 and turnover claims with language which was specific and unequivocal, (2) the Plan does not preserve the claims made in the Complaint under “state fraudulent transfer law,” and (3) the Court grants leave for the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

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 Crescent Resources (July 22, 2011)
Issue: Whether Duke Ventures, LLC (“Duke”), the Debtors’ parent company, had any right to assert a privilege as to the files held by Debtor s’ former counsel?
Holding: The Court finds that (1) the Trust bears the burden of showing that the files at issue are property of the estate and that the documents relate to the debtors’ property or financial affairs. The Trust has met its burden and has shown that it is a joint client with respect to the 2006 Duke Transaction matter; (2) the Trust has met its burden of showing it is entitled to both the pre- and post-transaction files, while Duke has not met its burden in showing it was a joint client with respect to those files; and (3) the Trust may not use the jointly-privileged files in matters with third parties but can use the files in matters between Duke and the Trust.

Ingalls v. Phillips (November 4, 2009)
Ingalls v. Phillips (November 3, 2009)
Issue: Should Trustee’s Complaint for turnover of funds that the Trustee asserts were improperly retained by Defendant in connection with his representation of Debtor be granted?
Holding: Yes. No matter how this case is dissected, Defendant has no legal authority for his retention of the funds paid to him by the Debtor during the Chapter 13 part of this case without Court permission and in violation of a prior Court order.