This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision involving creditor Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) and debtor Ken Gardner Ford Sales, Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 1980. The issues concerned whether FMCC's perfected security interest in the debtor's inventory under a floor plan financing agreement was limited to $1,250,000 due to failure to pay the full Tennessee UCC filing tax, and whether the trustee could recover $211,067.09 in payments reducing the debt in the 90 days before bankruptcy as voidable preferences. The court held that under Tennessee law, as clarified in American City Bank v. Western Auto Supply, the security interest was effective only to the extent of the tax paid, so FMCC was secured only up to $1,250,000 even after later paying additional taxes and penalties. It further held that the pre-bankruptcy reductions were avoidable preferences because they did not qualify for any of the exceptions in 11 U.S.C. § 547(c), as the debt was incurred when the initial obligation arose and other exceptions like new value or purchase money were inapplicable due to the limited perfection. The bankruptcy court's decision was affirmed.
This case is a personal injury lawsuit brought by Ted Fugunt, an employee of subcontractor Johns-Manville, against the Tennessee Valley Authority for injuries sustained while working at TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Fugunt had already received workers' compensation benefits from his direct employer and sought additional tort recovery from TVA. The court granted TVA's motion for summary judgment, holding that TVA qualified as a principal contractor under Tennessee workers' compensation statutes (TCA §§ 50-908 and 50-915). The reasoning centered on TVA's role in overseeing the overall project, contracting directly with subcontractors, and performing functions equivalent to those of a general contractor, which entitled it to statutory immunity from common-law tort claims. Tennessee precedent and the policy of the workers' compensation law supported treating TVA as immune once it assumed liability for compensation benefits.
This case under the Medicare Act concerns a provider, Hospital Affiliates International (HAI), that sought reimbursement for a claimed capital loss on the 1975 sale of a hospital building and equipment to a newly formed nonprofit, Downtown Hospital Association (DHA), asserting the loss resulted from prior inadequate depreciation and was allowable under 42 CFR § 405.415. The fiscal intermediary and Secretary denied the claim, and the Provider Reimbursement Review Board upheld the denial after finding the transaction involved related parties through HAI's continuing management role. On cross-motions for summary judgment and affirmance, the district court denied HAI's motion and upheld the Secretary's decision. The court reasoned that the administrative findings were supported by substantial evidence, the PRRB adequately explained its conclusions, and the hearing procedures satisfied due process despite limits on cross-examination of an intermediary witness.
This case was an SEC enforcement action against former officers of a bank holding company seeking a permanent injunction against future violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC alleged that the defendants had failed to disclose material facts in SEC filings and proxy materials concerning risky mortgage loans, the company's financial condition, and related transactions that contributed to the insolvency of its main banking subsidiary. After a bench trial, the court found that defendants Holliday and Chepul had recklessly omitted required disclosures in proxy materials in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The court declined to enjoin Holliday, concluding there was no likelihood of future violations given his new position, but issued an injunction against Chepul because his current role presented substantially similar opportunities for violations.
The case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in the Chapter 13 proceeding of debtors Darrell and Pamela Harris, who listed a cosigned loan from Fort Oglethorpe State Bank. The bankruptcy court denied the bank's request to lift the automatic stay against collection from the cosigner and imposed a $60 filing fee by treating the request as an adversary proceeding. The district court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the exceptions in 11 U.S.C. § 1301(c) for plans that do not pay the claim or cause irreparable harm do not apply when the approved plan provides for full payment plus interest, as the legislative history shows the stay requires creditors to wait for payments under the plan while protecting their substantive rights. The court reversed the filing fee, concluding that a request for relief from the comaker stay may proceed by motion under Bankruptcy Rule 914 rather than requiring a formal adversary proceeding.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of the debtors' Chapter 13 repayment plan over objections by creditor Credithrift. The creditor argued that the debtors' attorney was required to file a proof of claim to receive payment, that attorney fees had priority only over other unsecured claims and must be paid over the life of the plan, that the plan's language regarding fees was misconstrued, and that the plan was too vague. The court held that an attorney need only file a request for payment of administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 503 rather than a proof of claim, that such fees may be paid before or concurrently with other claims as long as payments begin no later than the first distribution to creditors, and that the plan provided sufficient detail without excessive specificity. The decision affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling on all points based on the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code governing administrative expenses and plan administration.
