Court first determined the ownership interests of the parties in certain companies, after an analysis of several agreements between the parties and the Trustee's request to avoid and recover certain transfers under sections 548, 549, and 550.  Court then determined that certain intellectual property constituted an asset of the companies, in light of precendent distinguishing a patent assignment from an agreement to assign a patent.  While the former must be in writing, the later may be oral.  Ultimately, Court ordered assignment of the patents to the companies, as an agreement to assign a patent constitutes the proper subject of an action for specific performance.

Decedent Chapter 7 Debtor's wife filed a motion, acting as personal representative of the probate estate, to avoid two judicial liens against the Debtor's real property that were not avoided during the bankruptcy. While courts have allowed lien avoidance nunc pro tunc by personal representatives, here the Debtor transferred the real property to entireties property prior to his death and discharge. Here, the property is now, and has always been, outside the probate estate. Thus, the wife lacks standing to reopen the case, as the property is not within the probate estate, and the judgment creditor has no claim against an asset of the estate or the estate itself. 

Court denied motion to approve settlement of section 707(a) action, noting that the agreement was not in the interest of any creditors other than the one party to the agreement and observing that a trial on the underlying motion would likely be brief.

Claimants in this matter were employees of the Debtor working as salemen.  During the course of the bankruptcy, debtor had sold substantially all of its assets to a purchaser in exchange for a lump payment.  After the closing of the sale, the claimants each filed a proof of claim asserting claims for commissions based on sales made to customers that were in varying levels of completion, but that had not been collected upon by the debtor.  Afterward, claimants filed a joint motion for allowance of administrative expense claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A), 503(b)(1)(A)(i) and 507(b)(2).  This motion alleged that claimants were entitled to an administrative claim for the work they had done and, alternatively, if they were not contractually entitled to this, that they should be compensated under a theory of quantum meruit.  The creditors’ committee and debtor both moved to dismiss this claim.  The Court held that (1) Claimants’ express contracts provided that commissions would be paid when the debtor collected on the sales, debtor did not collect on the sales and so the claimants were not entitled to payment for them; and (2) claimants could not collect on a theory of quantum meruit because there was an express contract that governed the relationship.