In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 012 (approving a pre-confirmation sale of substantially all of the chapter 11 debtor’s assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) finding that the proposed sale was not a de facto plan, creditors were afforded protections consistent with the statutory safeguards of the chapter 11 confirmation process, there was a valid business reason for the proposed sale outside the confirmation process, and the proposed sale made good sense in the overall context of the reorganization)
You are here
The District of New Hampshire offers a database of opinions issued from 1999 to present. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword or case number in the search box above.
In re Tempnology, LLC, 2015 BNH 011 (determining that exclusive distribution rights and rights to use the debtor's trademarks under a pre-petition co-marketing and distribution agreement that also granted a non-exclusive license to the debtor's intellectual property were not rights to intellectual property that the licensee could retain post-rejection pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1)(B)).
In re Taal, 2015 BNH 010 (sustaining in part debtor's objection to mortgagee's proof of claim and notice of post-petition fees and costs on the basis that certain attorney's fees were not recoverable under the relevant note, mortgage, and state law, which 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) and (e) made applicable to the bankruptcy proceeding; awarding the debtor attorney's fees and disallowing certain attorney's fees to the mortgagee based on New Hampshire R.S.A. 361-C:2).
In re Ashley, 539 B.R. 198 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (imposing an inherent power, non-contempt, punitive sanction against the debtors’ car lender for failure to comply with the terms of the debtors’ chapter 13 plan and the court’s confirmation order, which together bound lender to release its lien and deliver the certificate of title upon full payment of lender’s secured claim, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a)).
In re GT Advanced Techs., Inc. Bk. No. 14-11916-HJB (Bankr. D.N.H. Sept. 30, 2015) (denying the debtors' motion seeking approval of a key employee incentive plan, the KEIP, and key employee retention plan, the KERP, as the KEIP is primarily designed to be retentive and not incentive in nature and fails to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(1) and the KERP, as currently formulated, is not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore does not meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(3)).
Gordon v. Millette (In re Millette), 539 B.R. 396 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (granting motion for summary judgment of plaintiff chapter 7 trustee on complaint for turnover, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542(a), of annual payments due post-petition that debtor was receiving from her ex-spouse under a divorce decree, after determining that such payments were property of the bankruptcy estate).
In re Robinson, 2015 BNH 007 (denying the debtors’ motion seeking to void the bank’s second mortgage lien on the debtors’ primary residence after finding that the value of the debtors’ residence exceeded the bank’s first mortgage claim; since some value existed regarding the bank’s second mortgage claim such that it was partially secured under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), the debtors could not modify the residential real property lien rights of the bank under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)).
Abdinoor v. Navient Solutions, Inc. (In re Abdinoor), 2015 BNH 006 (concluding that the debtor failed to establish under the totality of the circumstances test that paying her student loan debt would impose an undue hardship on her within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)).
Ezenia! Inc. v. Nguyen (In re Ezenia! Inc.), 536 B.R. 485 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2015) (disallowing claim of debtor's former CEO for severance benefits under employment contract, liquidating his claim for deferred compensation as of the petition date, disallowing claim for damages related to erroneous income reporting to IRS, and sanctioning former CEO for spoliation of evidence and failure to produce information during discovery process).
Piotrowski v. Boulard (In re Boulard), 2015 BNH 004 (finding that the plaintiff did not hold a debt which could be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the plaintiff failed to establish that the debtor was liable to her on her claim of wrongful termination under New Hampshire’s whistleblower statute, NH RSA 275-E).