11th Circuit

Eleventh Circuit: Chapter 13 Debtor Keeps Settlement of a Personal Injury Claim

What’s a settlement of a personal injury claim? Is it income earmarked for creditors in chapter 13?

Court :

The Supreme Court’s Acevedo Doesn’t Preclude Annulling the Stay, Eleventh Circuit Says

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the idea that a Supreme Court decision could nullify a provision in the Bankruptcy Code.

Court :

No Circuit Split: Sub V Corporate Debtors Can Have Nondischargeable Debts

Over a dissent, the Eleventh Circuit aligned with the Fourth and Fifth Circuits by holding that corporate Subchapter V debtors can have nondischargeable debts, unlike corporations in ‘regular’ chapter 11.

Court :

‘Serious Concerns’ About a Conflict Aren’t Enough to Disqualify a Trustee’s Counsel

A firm wasn’t disqualified when attorneys who left the firm long ago had represented an adversary in a possibly similar engagement.

Court :

Consent Is an Exception to Jevic’s Insistence on Respecting Priorities in Distribution

Consent from administrative creditors provided grounds for approving DIP financing and a sale when the estate was administratively insolvent.

Court :

Segal v. Rochelle May Remain Good Law Only in Limited Circumstances

The elaborate definition of ‘estate property’ in Section 541(a) may have superseded the 1966 ‘sufficiently rooted’ analysis in Segal.

Court :

Georgia Southern District

Georgia

The ‘Domestic Violence’ Stay Exception Applies to Sexual Violence Decades Earlier

Bankruptcy Judge Robert Mark held that the Section 362(b)(2)(A)(v) exception to the automatic stay covers more than imminent or ongoing sexual abuse.

Court :

‘Notice’ in Rule 3002(c)(7) Means Notice of the Bar Date, Not Notice of the Case

Bankruptcy Judge Scott Grossman adopted the analysis by Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh in concluding that creditors are entitled to notice of the claims bar date, not just notice of the filing.

Court :

Post-Petition or ‘Evergreen’ Retainers Are Permissible in Subchapter V, Judge Isicoff Says

A Sub V case was not of a ‘size or exceptional nature’ to justify a post-petition retainer when counsel could file interim fee applications.

Court :