Table of Contents

BANKRUPTCY CASES

• U.S. v. Day
• US v. Padron
• Tri-State Fin., LLC v. Lovald
• In re: M & S Grading, Inc.,
• In re: Resource Tech. Corp.

BANKRUPTCY CASES

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 09, 2008
U.S. v. Day, No. 06-3063, 06-3076
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal forfeiture context. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit, May 13, 2008
US v. Padron, No. 07-11228
Conviction and sentence for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the government's conduct in investigating him amounted to entrapment; 2) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings during trial; and 3) the district court erred in its calculation of victim's loss amount and that it lacked statutory authority to impose a forfeiture money judgment against him. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit, May 13, 2008
Tri-State Fin., LLC v. Lovald, No. 07-2430, 07-2433
In consolidated bankruptcy proceedings wherein the bankruptcy court denied a motion seeking recusal of the bankruptcy judge, approved a settlement negotiation, denied a motion for hearing on the settlement, and approved an award of attorneys' fees, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the recusal motion was made untimely; 2) upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement or denying the motion for settlement hearing; and 3) because the fee award was only challenged on the basis of a conflict and not contested as to whether the amount was reasonable, the court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorneys' fees. Read more...

U.S. 8th Circuit, May 14, 2008
In re: M & S Grading, Inc.,, No. 07-2434
In an appeal following a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to require a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failing to pay contributions ordered while the debtor's case was in Chapter 11, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the bankruptcy court's order denying a motion to show cause was not a final appealable order; and 2) the order did not qualify as a collateral order, for purposes of the collateral order doctrine. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit, May 15, 2008
In re: Resource Tech. Corp., No. 07-1879
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which plaintiffs sought to be assigned a contract bankruptcy debtor had with a third party, bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to compel the trustee to assume the contract and then assign it is affirmed where: 1) the court did not improperly consider whether the contract between the debtor and the third party had expired in order to determine if the trustee could assume the contract without being subject to sanctions under Rule 9011; 2) orders extending the time for the trustee to assume or reject the contract were not a basis to contend that the contract had not expired; 3) third party was not estopped from asserting that the contract had expired; and 4) there was no need for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the contract had expired. Read more...