Summary: The Debtor sought to have the bankruptcy judge recuse herself, based on an alleged financial interest held by the judge in JP Morgan Chase, a party in an adversary proceeding.

Summary: Clean Burn Fuels (CBF) operated a pant that converted corn supplied by Purdue Bionery (Purdue) into ethanol. The agreement between the parties provided that Purdue would retain ownership of the corn until it was delivered to CBF, defined as the when it passed over a weigh belt, the final stage before the conversion of the corn into ethanol began.

Summary: The SEC filed a complaint against the Debtor and two other individuals in 2005 alleging they had engaged in a $60 million Ponzi scheme, specifically alleging that the Debtor unlawfully sold unregistered securities, was not registered as a broker-dealer when selling certain billboards, and failed to disclose material information to investors. In 2006, the Debtor and the SEC filed a consent judgment wherein the Debtor agreed to, among other terms, disgorge nearly $2 million.

Summary: Lee and Patsy Hilliard were married in 1975 and both served as officers of Royal Tours. Following their separation in 2008, the couple entered into a Separation Agreement whereby Patsy Hilliard resigned her position with Royal Tours and accepted a cash payment from Royal Tours in lieu of an Equitable Distribution consisting of 108 monthly payments of $3,500. The Chapter 7 Trustee alleged that the twelve payments made prior to the bankruptcy filing were preferences pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547.

Summary: The Debtor had filed four case within nine months. The first was dismissed for failure to obtain credit counseling, although no schedules had been filed either nor had the Debtor attended the §341 Meeting of Creditors. The second case was dismissed for failure to file schedules, attend the §341 Meeting of Creditors, or make any payments. The third case was voluntarily dismissed following partial payment of the filing fee and filing of schedules, but still without attendance at the §341 Meeting of Creditors or any plan payment.

Summary: Following conversion from Chapter 13, the Debtor sought to redeem a motor vehicle based on the NADA trade-in value from the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Finding that BAPCPA amendments in 2005 to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) abrogated the previous rule as stated in In re Murray, No. 00-10603, slip op. at 5-6 (Bankr. M.D.N.C.

Summary: Following City of Perth Amboy v. Custom Distrib. Serv., Inc. (In re Custom Distrib. Serv., Inc.), 224 F.3d 235, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2000), the bankruptcy court held that a Debtor must “must have properly requested [a] tax refund ... in order for [a bankruptcy] court to have the jurisdiction to determine and order the payment of such refund.” The Debtor applied for a tentative carry back adjustment to the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6411, by completing Form 1139.

Summary: The Debtor filed Chapter 13 on January 22, 2012, after Reliable Motors repossessed a vehicle four days earlier. The Debtor’s attorney both sent notice of the bankruptcy and was called Reliable that day. The Debtor went to Reliable car lot a few days later, seeking to regain possession of the vehicle, but Reliable refused to return the vehicle. On February 3, 2012, Reliable was again provided notice of the case, proof of insurance on the vehicle and evidence that the Debtor had made his first payment under the proposed plan.

Summary: In this case, the bankruptcy court’s retelling of the facts (or allegations of facts) surrounding a failed friendship, a failed car wash and the ownership of a 1968 Ford Mustang could serve as a prospectus for a reality television show. The issue ultimately revolved around the validity of a replacement title obtained by Morgan from the DMV. The court held that the burden fell on Morgan to establish that the subsequent Title Application was valid.

Summary: Previously, the bankruptcy court granted the Debtor’s Motion to Employ Jones and DJP (the “Special Counsel Motion”) for the “limited purposes” of representing the Debtor “with respect to such corporate and securities matters as may be requested.” The Special Counsel Motion disclosed the fact that DJP was prepetition counsel to the Debtor and was owed a prepetition debt, but did not state the amount owed, which was in excess of $500,000.