Notice: Not all of the Judges Opinions will be made available on this site. Individual Judges have the option of specifying that all, some or none of their opinions be posted.
Court found that the Debtors' transfer of a remainder interest in real property to their mother was not actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), but was constructively fraudulent pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 548(a)(1)(B) because no consideration was provided in exchange for the transferred interest and the Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfer. Luker v. Eubanks (In re Eubanks), 444 B.R.415 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).
Court found that debtor and creditor entered into a binding settlement agreement under Arkansas law to settle a dischargeability lawsuit under 11 U.S.C. § 523, and that the settlement was enforceable despite lack of prior court approval under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019(a). Hyundai Motor Finance Co. v. McKay (In re McKay), 443 B.R.511 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).
In Chapter 11 case, the Court denied request for relief from stay made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) on two pieces of real property, which were the primary assets of the Debtor’s estate. The Court held that the appraisals and other evidence of value were not sufficiently reliable or persuasive for the Creditor to meet its burden of proof of a lack of equity in the properties, and furthermore, that the equity cushion, marketing strategy, and likelihood of a confirmed plan were sufficient to provide adequate protection. The Court also denied the Creditor’s request for valuation of its claims, made pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3012, holding that the evidence presented did not lend itself to the type of specific, quantified determination necessary for such a finding. In re Panther Mountain Land Development, LLC, 438 B.R. 169 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).
Court denied Bank's motion to dismiss Chapter 11 case finding that the Debtors' plan was filed in good faith, and the Debtors' case is not otherwise subject to dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). Court further conditionally confirmed Chapter 11 plan overruling creditors' objections to feasibility, and finding that the proposed post-confirmation interest rate and length of payout period with respect to bank creditor's claim was fair and equitable under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2). However, Court held that Debtors must modify their plan to pay the Bank, an oversecured creditor, interest on its claim at the contract rate from the date of filing through confirmation. Finally, the Court found that Debtors' plan to pay the Farm Services Agency (FSA) $4,000 in lieu of its Junior Lien in addition to the other payments and security provided to FSA was fair and equitable under the "indubitable equivalence" test of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii). In re Bryant, 439 B.R.724 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).
The Court found that the creditor was entitled to administrative expenses for the use of two tractors during the first 59 days pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A), and for all three tractors from the 60th day after the filing of the petition until the date of the rejection pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503 and 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(5).
Court analyzes the standards for awarding administrative expenses and interpreting the terms of an agreed order.
The debtor's objection to claim based upon breach of contract is sustained in part. The debtor's claims for violation of the automatic stay, turnover, and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act are denied.
The court found that the creditor had standing to bring suit against other members of an LLC because he had suffered a direct injury under § 523(a)(2). However, the creditor did not have standing under § 523(a)(4); although the debtor/managing member may have had a fiduciary relationship with the LLC, he did not have a fiduciary relationship with the other members in their individual capacity. Misrepresentations relating to the payment or accrual of management fees resulted in a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2).
The Court denied the chapter 7 debtor his discharge under s. 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)(A).
The court denied the plaintiffs’ complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt resulting from a state court judgment against the debtors as trustees of their respective living trusts. Because the court could not find that the debtors were individually liable on the debt, there was no debt as contemplated under § 523(a).