Published on:

case update rides again: cir 1, cir 9

cir 1

In Re: Barroso-Herrans, 07-1757 [May 07, 2008]

Bankruptcy court’s approval of settlement presented by trustee is affirmed where trustee’s reading of certain of debtors’ claimed exemptions as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of 2 underlying lawsuits was objectively reasonable.

cir 9

In re: Slatkin, 06-56334 [May 06, 2008]

Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding certain transfers by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme under sec. 548(a) of the Code and California Civil Code sec. 3439.04(a) is affirmed where:

1) bk court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors’ motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery;

2) investors’ right to a jury trial was not violated by grant of summary judgment;

3) bk court properly determined that debtor acted with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” creditors;

4) determination that debtor was not a “stockbroker” under the Code was proper; and

5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

In re: Straightline Invs., Inc., 05-15979 [May 08, 2008]

A judgment under Code sec. 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor’s accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant’s claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor’s estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 06-35850 [May 08, 2008]

In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs’ were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs’ sec. 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs’ collateral attack on a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate sec. 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs’ property.

Published on:
Updated: