8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Digest: March 26, 2020.

Byline: Minnesota Lawyer

CIVIL OPINIONS

Bankruptcy

Avoidance and Recovery; Preferences; Contemporaneous Exchange

Where a trustee filed an adversary proceeding seeking avoidance and recovery of certain payments to Wells Fargo as preferences, the court properly interpreted the consignment arrangement and applied it correctly to determine new value, and the court did not err in applying the contemporaneous exchange for new value preference except to payments that the debtor made to Wells Fargo from avoidance as preferences. Judgment is affirmed.

19-6013 Lauter v. Wells Fargo Bank, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Schermer, J.

Bankruptcy

Chapter 13 Cases; Dismissal; Bad Faith

Where debtors challenged the dismissal of their individual Chapter 13 cases with a bar to refiling for 180 days, the judgment is affirmed because the court found that their multiple filings were part of a long-running scheme to manipulate and abuse the bankruptcy system to the detriment of creditors.Judgment is affirmed.

19-6027 Steiner v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Shodeen, J.

Bankruptcy

Post-Petition Default Interest; Oversecured Creditor

Where a bank challenged an order of the bankruptcy court denying its motion for the allowance of post-petition default interest, the bank, as an oversecured creditor, had the unqualified right to petition for interest and the interest should be computed at the rate provided in the parties' agreement if allowed by law, and there were no allegations of misconduct by the bank, so it should be allowed to collect interest if the notes are in default, and the issue of whether and when the loans became in default is remanded for determination. Judgment is reversed and remanded.

19-6025 The Bank of Missouri v. Family Pharmacy Inc., appealed from the Western District of Missouri,Saladino, J.

Civil Practice

Class Actions; Certification

Where railroad employees moved to certify a class action for a claim challenging the railroad's fitness-for-duty policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the individualized inquiries could not be addressed in a manner consistent with Rule 23, so the predominance and cohesiveness requirements of the rule were violated, and the District Court abused its discretion in certifying the class. Judgment is reversed.

19-1514 Harris v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, appealed from the District of Nebraska, Gruender, J.

Civil Rights

Dormant Commerce...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT