Defendant in a pending adversary proceeding moved the court to rule that the plaintiff chapter 7 estate had a conflict of interest with the estate’s largest creditor, such that the trustee was required to retain new, separate counsel (the same counsel represents both). The court determined that the outcome of the conflict issue depended on the proper interpretation of a contract between the estate and the creditor. The court interpreted the contract and ruled that no disqualifying conflict of interest existed.

Plaintiff brought a nondischargeability action, seeking to declare her state court judgment against debtor/defendant nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(2)(A). After a trial on the merits, the court ruled that defendant had defrauded plaintiff and that all damages awarded by the state court arose from the fraud.da

Debtor’s principal sought a declaratory judgment determining that a three-year noncompete obligation, which arose upon the Debtor’s default under closing documents executed in connection with the purchase of a business, had expired by its own terms. Seller opposed the motion, asserting that 1) § 108(c) applied to suspend the term of the non-compete obligation; 2) under a savings clause, the Court, in its discretion, could reform the agreement to extend the term of the noncompete obligations; or 3) equitable tolling applies. The Court determined that § 108(c) is inapplicable. The Court also concluded that it lacked authority to reform the non-compete agreement; however, the Court found that equitable tolling may apply, since seller diligently sought to pursue its rights to enforce the noncompete provision while the Debtor, through its principals, continued to operate the business. The automatic stay allowed Debtor to continue business operations in violation of the noncompete agreement while it attempted to confirm a chapter 11 plan, while holding seller at bay from enforcing its rights. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that equitable tolling may apply, provided the seller has resumed competing business operations and depending on other factors. The Court set an evidentiary hearing to take evidence regarding seller’s current and intended business operations before making a final ruling.

Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on validity, existence, and amount of debt owed by Debtor-Defendants relating to stock purchases and a loan, as established by a state court judgment, as well as non-dischargeability of the debt on the basis of fraud under § 523(a)(2) and securities violations under § 523(a)(19). The Court granted summary judgment with respect to the validity, existence, and amount of debt because the state court judgment had claim preclusive effect on such matters. However, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims. Regarding the fraud dischargeability claim, the state court judgment did not have (ii) claim preclusive effect because that claim is unique to bankruptcy or (ii) issue preclusive effect because the issue was not actually litigated, and the state court’s amended judgment removed the finding of fraud. Regarding the securities violation dischargeability claim, the Court ruled that § 523(a)(19) overrides the traditional “actually litigated” requirement for issue preclusion. The Court then found that the state court judgment was silent on whether it was based on a securities violation and a review of the complaint did not clarify the basis for the judgment. Resolving a split in the case law, the Court found that it has authority under § 523(a)(19) to determine with there is a securities violation but denied summary judgment on the § 523(a)(19) claim because material facts are in genuine dispute.