The court sustained various objections to the debtor's Chapter 11 plan on grounds of feasibility, lack of good faith, and improper classification of claims. Moreover, there is no precedent for allowing a Chapter 11 debtor who has no legal obligation on a note to modify the terms of that note via his plan.
You are here
Opinions
United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
The court denied the administrative expense applications filed by the debtor's equity interest holders. The applicants were unable to establish that their involvement in the case provided a "substantial contribution" to the estate as required by § 503(b)(3)(D). The equitable "common fund" doctrine did not provide a remedy because the movants did not demonstrate any "dominating reasons of justice" to invoke it.
The court denied the administrative expense applications filed by the debtor's equity interest holders. The applicants were unable to establish that their involvement in the case provided a "substantial contribution" to the estate as required by § 503(b)(3)(D). The equitable "common fund" doctrine did not provide a remedy because the movants did not demonstrate any "dominating reasons of justice" to invoke it.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court denied a motion for sanctions filed by a creditor involved in a long-standing dispute with the debtor. The debtor's post-petition publication of potentially defamatory material about the creditor was inappropriate, but likely within his free speech rights. The creditor could pursue state-court remedies if warranted.
The court denied confirmation of the debtors' Chapter 12 plan because it was not feasible and it proposed to amortize short-term notes secured by personal property over 25 years. That lengthier term deprived the lender of the benefit of its bargain.