This is an adversary proceeding seeking denial of discharge for transferring property with intent to hinder, delay or defraud a creditor. The plaintiffs alternatively ask the court to except the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

The court allowed in part the final application for compensation for the law firm representing a Chapter 11 debtor. The court disallowed the portion of the requested fees related to the abandonment of assets because the court previously ruled that the firm violated the standard of care concerning its representation of the debtor in this regard. The firm also was ordered to disgorge $400,000 in fees  due to its "blatant disregard of the Bankruptcy Code and the rules" in misrepresenting to the court its compensation arrangements with and payments from third parties.

A party moved to recuse the bankruptcy judge assigned to the case from handling the matter on remand, asserting that the judge would be biased due to an inability to set aside impressions formed from the judge's review of and familiarity with the trial testimony, evidence, and earlier rulings in the case. The court denied the motion, explaining that the scope of the disqualification statute does not  extend to knowledge gleaned and opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings.

The court denied summary judgment on a creditor's § 523(a)(2)(A) complaint to except a debt from discharge. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the debtor, showed material issues of fact concerning the nature and terms of the agreement between the parties, specifically as to whether it was a land lease or a crop-share agreement, as well as to the amount of the debt owed to the landowner. These factual issues cannot be decided on summary judgment and should be determined at trial.