round up, round up, who's got the round up?

1st Circuit

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts (04/20/06 - No. 05-1858)

Summary judgment for defendant-creditor-bank and denial of chapter 7 discharge affirmed where plaintiff transferred assets within a year of filing with intent to defraud creditors.

4th Circuit

Hazelbaker v. Hope Gas, Inc. (04/18/06 - No. 04-2526)

Dismissal of appeal based on "statutory mootness" is confirmed with an eye towards the code's concern for finality of bk sales (sec. 363(m)). Appellant also failed to obtain a stay pending appeal (hence, mootness of the issue).

5th Circuit

Newby v. Enron Corp. (04/17/06 - No. 05-20219)

In a legal malpractice suit against a law firm involving statements made in a legal opinion regarding a transaction with later-bankrupt Enron Corporation, a remand order to state court is affirmed where the district court properly determined that the defendant-law firm's "apportionment complaint" failed, destroying the basis for federal jurisdiction. Ed. Note: Yes, the plaintiff's name is "Newby" - I can't make this stuff up.

6th Circuit

Meoli v. Citicorp Trust Bank (04/20/06 - No. 05-1075)

Summary judgment to a creditor in a bankruptcy action is affirmed over a bankruptcy trustee's claim that the creditor's security interest in an affixed mobile home was unperfected under state law where, pursuant to a statutory amendment which applied retroactively, the security interest was properly perfected.

7th Circuit

Hower v. Molding Sys. Eng'g Corp. (04/19/06 - No. 05-1889)

Appeal of an order approving sale of a business is moot since the sale already occurred and there was no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of a stay of the sale pending or clear error in the court's determination that the sale was in good faith.

11th Circuit

Colton v. Verola (04/20/06 - No. 04-14662)

Reversal of decision that restitution obligation arising from defendant's Florida conviction for fraudulent transactions was dischargeable under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code is affirmed over claims that: 1) the Supreme Court's decision in Davenport "abrogated" its decision in Kelly; 2) the 1994 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code effectively preempted the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelly; and 3) the district court erred in failing to follow the test for determining whether restitution is "payable to and for the benefit of a government unit" for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(7).