  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
554 Abandonment
Biesek v. Soo Lin R.R. Co., 440 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. Mar. 6, 2006) (District Court properly granted summary judgment to debtor's employer in separate action under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60. Debtor had intentionally omitted the claim against the employer from his statements and schedules. District Court found that the separate action was barred by judicial estoppel. Circuit Court found judicial estoppel inapplicable because the chose in action belonged to the Trustee, not the debtor, as a pre-petition claim. The Circuit Court nonetheless affirmed summary judgment because the Trustee had not abandoned the chose in action and thus the debtor could not pursue the action.)
In re Senior Cottages of America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) (While bankruptcy court had discretion to deny the trustee's motion to amend his fraudulent transfer complaint against insiders of the debtor, the district court erroneously upheld the denial on the basis that the trustee did not have standing to assert a claim when the damages would be payable to creditors. A trustee holds claims belonging to the debtor at the time of filing pursuant to § 704(1), and claims that a debtor was wrongfully deprived of its assets pre-petition is a claim a trustee has standing to assert. There is no requirement in the avoidance provisions of § 541 that creditors not be the primary beneficiaries of a trustee's avoidance claim, and such a requirement, if imposed, would invalidate avoidance claims in any case in which the estate could not make creditors whole. The availability to the defendants of the in pari delicto defense would also not affect the trustee's standing, because it is an affirmative defense and not a constitutional bar to the trustee's assertion of the claim.)
In re Ontos Inc., 478 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. Mar. 1, 2007) (Creditors' alleged fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, successor liability, and alter ego claims against the debtor's directors and the purchaser of its assets were estate property pursuant to § 541(a)(1). The claims alleged harm to the debtor and were thus derivative claims belonging to the trustee.)
Hill v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (In re MS55, Inc.), 477 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. Feb. 13 2007) (Chapter 7 Trustee was barred from asserting claims against creditor, where pre-conversion Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession waived said claims. Causes of action retained by the Chapter 11 creditors' committee did not belong to Trustee but dissolved in the conversion.)
707(b) Dismissal
Hebbring v. U.S. Trustee, 463 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court did not abuse discretion in dismissing a Chapter 7 petition for substantial abuse pursuant to pre-BAPCPA § 707(b), where debtor's disposable income was sufficient to pay creditors if she included her voluntary monthly retirement contributions. The Ninth Circuit rejected any bright-line, universal rule as to
