In re Berkeley Delaware Court, LLC

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a bankruptcy action, the district court’s dismissal of the appeal as moot under 11 U.S.C. section 363(m) is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) a bankruptcy court has discretion to apply the procedures of section 363(m) to a sale of claims pursuant to a settlement approved under Bankruptcy Rule 9019; and 2) the bankruptcy court below did not clearly err in concluding that the creditor was a good faith purchaser of the debtor’s claims.

In re Del Biaggio III

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a bankruptcy action, arising from a dispute between owners of the National Hockey League’s Nashville Predators, and involving a general unsecured claim for damages against debtor’s estate, the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to the estate is affirmed where the subordination of claims arising from the purchase or sale of the security of a debtor to other senior and equal claims under 11 U.S.C., section 510(b) applies where the debtor is an individual.

Coles v. Glaser

(California Court of Appeal) – In contracts action, arising after plaintiff’s recovery on a settlement agreement with defendants was surrendered as a preferential payment after one declared bankruptcy, the trial court’s entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a debt of a contractual co-obligor is not extinguished by another co-obligor’s pre-bankruptcy payment to a creditor that is later determined to be a bankruptcy preference.

Rivera v. Orange County Probation Dep’t

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a debtor’s motion to sanction Orange County for persisting post-discharge in its efforts to collect a debt arising from the debtor’s son’s involuntary juvenile detention, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion is reversed where the debtor’s liability for the costs of support of her son while in detention was not a ‘domestic support obligation’ and thus was not excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(5).

In Re Smith

(United States Ninth Circuit) – In a debtor’s adversary proceeding seeking a determination that his federal income tax liabilities were dischargeable in bankruptcy, the district court’s order reversing the bankruptcy court and entering summary judgment in favor of the IRS is affirmed where: 1) the debtor’s tax liabilities were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(B)(i), which exempts from discharge any debt for a tax with respect to which a return was not filed; and 2) debtor’s late-filed Form 1040 did not represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law, and he therefore did not file a ‘return’ within the meaning of section 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

In re Motors Liquidation Co.

(United States Second Circuit) – In an appeal of a Bankruptcy Court judgment enforcing a ‘free and clear’ provision of a sale order to enjoin claims against a debtor’s successor corporation and concluding under the equitable mootness doctrine that assets of the debtor’s unsecured creditors’ trust would be protected from late‐filed claims, the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment is: 1) affirmed as the decision not to enforce the Sale Order as to the independent claims; 2) reversed insofar as it enforced the Sale Order to enjoin claims relating to the ignition switch defect; 3) vacated insofar as it enjoined claims based in non‐ignition switch defects; and 4) vacated as to the decision on equitable mootness as advisory.