Unless the debtors obtain relief from the trustee or the court, their tax return must be on file with the IRS and delivered to the trustee prior to the first meeting of creditors. Failure to comply will result in dismissal or conversion of their case.

After business was liquidated & proceeds distributed to secured creditors, DIP's insurance carrier sought to surcharge secured creditors for unpaid post-petition premiums. Court allowed surcharge under section 506(c) because it benefitted sec. creditors

Debtor's Roth IRA, containing $3,300, should be turned over to the Chapter 7 trustee for administration. The debtor has 30+ years until retirement, no dependents, and little debt, so the IRA isn't necessary for his support

Debtors created a trust pre-petition, but did not complete transfer of corporate stock into it until after filing the bankruptcy case. They believed the stock had been transferred, & acted accordingly. Court found no fraud or concealment of assets

Court granted motion for summary judgment saying the debtor transferred all the assets to wife and took all the debts in the marriage settlement, three months before filing for bankruptcy, which made the transfers fraudulent and avoidable.

Debtor's transfer of stock sale proceeds to a trust created for his children is avoidable under the Neb. Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The transfer was made while debtor was insolvent; he did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange.

Genuine issues of material fact exist on avoidable preference and fraudulent transfer including existence of antecedent debt, whether debt restructure is a legitimate supervening purpose and whether reasonably equivalent value was received.

The bank obtained its purchase money security interest in debtor's vehicle within 910 days of the petition date, so § 1325(a)(9) precludes bifurcation of the claim. The bank is deemed fully secured and may collect attorney fees and interest.

A debtor filed a preference action against her husband, also a debtor in a separate case. However, the parties agreed that the movant did not owe an antecedent debt to the defendant, so there was no basis for the preference action.