Taxing authorities could claim administrative expenses for taxes incurred post-petition, pre-chapter 11 plan effective date, despite filing their claims after the general administrative expense claims bar date. Under § 503(b)(1)(D), taxing authorities are not required to file a request for payment of administrative expense as a condition to allowance of an administrative expense claim. Neither the administrative expense claims bar date order nor the confirmed plan specifically overrode § 503(b)(1)(D)’s exception. However, once property of the estate vested in the debtor on the plan effective date, no further taxes could be incurred by the estate. Consequently, because administrative tax claims are limited to taxes incurred by the estate, the Court disallowed the taxing authorities’ claim for administrative expenses incurred on or after the plan effective date.  

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.