Debtor moved for an order authorizing its counsel to apply retainers to previously awarded fees and expenses, which the Court denied. When the Debtor delivered the retainer check prepetition, it was not a transfer of an interest in property because it did not give the holder any claim on the property of the issuer other than enforcing the check. When the check was honored postpetition, however, the payment of the check was a transfer of property of the estate.
You are here
Opinions
Effective January 1, 2017, Orders in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia designated by the Court as "opinions" will be transmitted to the Government Publishing Office (GPO) and made available to the public at no cost. To view these opinions, click HERE to be transferred to GPO site.
Orders designated as Opinions and issued between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2016 are maintained on this website. Many of these Opinions are not intended for publication and are so designated. Each entry includes the style of the matter, the case number, the date entered on the docket, and a short parenthetical expression of the issue(s) raised. The most recent opinions appear first.
You can narrow your search by judge and/or year below. You can also use the search feature above to search by name, word, or phrase. The single opinions are in PDF text format and may be searched for word, phrase, or date by using “Control F,” the Windows search function available in any Windows application.
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
The Barton doctrine required the Defendant to obtain leave of the Court prior to filing suit against the chapter 11 Trustee where the claim was related to and would adversely affect the bankruptcy case. The Court held parties initiating suit against Trustee without Court approval in contempt for violating the Barton doctrine and ordered them to dismiss cases in federal court that attempted to re-litigate issues decided by the Court’s denial of the motion to remove the Trustee.
Motion for summary judgment denied where there were disputed factual issues. The chapter 7 Trustee sought to include in property of the estate rental property purchased by the Debtor’s mother in the name of herself and her 2 children. The filings of both parties raised an issue of the extent of an equitable interest in or potential gift to Debtor of the property.
The U.S. Trustee objected to the fee application of the law firm representing the Chapter 7 Trustee. The Court distinguished services performed by a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 704 from legal services, awarding fees for services legal in nature and denying fees for work performed that did not require a license to practice law.
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw deemed admissions; the motion failed to address the two-part test for withdrawal in Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). Defendant’s blanket assertion of 5th Amendment privilege was not a basis for failing to respond to the request for admissions.
The Court granted judgment on the pleadings for debtor defendant in plaintiff’s case for nondischargeability under 11 USC 523(a)(2),(4), & (6). Defendant’s claims of witness interference under FLSA, intimidation, and conspiracy to deter a witness from testifying were not supported merely by allegations of breach of an employment contract, a request for return of property, and a failure to remit severance pay.
The issues here were whether various counts of the complaint asserting debts to be nondischargeable stated claims for relief. The court denied the motion Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the count under section 523(a)(2) because the facts alleged, though they did not include a false representation, were sufficient to show actual fraud. The decision also dealt with claims under section 523(a)(6) (motion denied) and (a)(4) (motion granted).
Debtor moved to value a portion of the collateral (unimproved land) securing a debt owed to a bank and guaranteed by third parties in connection with a plan of reorganization proposing to transfer that portion of the collateral to the bank in full satisfaction of its claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that the evidence did not prove the value of the property at issue and therefore failed to show that its value was the indubitable equivalent of Respondent’s claim.
Disclosure Statement in Chapter 11 case disapproved for not providing “adequate information” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 1125 because it provided no facts or analysis to show that the plan was superior to liquidation and no information to show how Debtor would generate the earnings needed to fund the plan.
Reorganized debtor that is a defendant in an adversary proceeding in another bankruptcy court lacked standing to bring motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum to individuals in connection with that litigation because it did not show it had a personal right or privilege regarding the subject matter of the subpoenas.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION