Plaintiff, an independent retail community pharmacy, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to require the Defendant, a Pharmacy Services Administrative Organization, to turn over funds the debtor contended belong to it. In denying the Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to prove that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying claims in the adversary proceeding litigation. Here, the test is whether the debtor will be successful in this litigation where it seeks turnover of its receivables, an injunction and a finding that the automatic stay is violated. The Court found that the doctrine of recoupment applies to such receivables under the terms of the contract signed by the parties, thus the automatic stay provided for in the Bankruptcy Code does not apply.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo Bank and its parent company for actions related to the debtors having their mortgage loans placed in forbearance status by Wells Fargo without their permission, knowledge or request. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Defendants assert that the notices of forbearance explicitly disclaimed compliance with Rule 3002.1, that the Rule does not give rise to a private cause of action and that the court lacks jurisdiction over claims involving debtors from other courts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on the count involving the violation of Rule 3002.1. The Defendants assert that the count involving the alleged violation of the automatic stay should also be dismissed as providing forbearance relief and filing notices of forbearance are not attempts to collect a debt or conduct otherwise prohibited by 11 U.S.C. Section 362. The Court found that the sufficient facts were alleged to support a plausible claim for violation of Section 362(a)(3) , but not as to Section 362(a)(6). The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to invoke its inherent powers and powers under 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) to sanction the Defendants for abuse of process, contempt of court and fraud on the court. The Court held that the Plaintiffs made a plausible claim that Wells Fargo engaged in a maneuver or scheme sufficient to undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy system and for contempt under the Court’s inherent powers and Section 105 powers, but not for fraud on the court. Finally, the Court dismissed the parent company as a defendant as the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to support piercing the corporate veil to hold the parent company liable for the acts of its subsidiary.

The debtors converted their chapter 7 case to one under chapter 13. The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss or reconvert arguing that the debtors were not eligible to be debtors in chapter 13 because the amount of their debt as of the petition date exceeded the statutory limits based on the debtors’ schedules. The debtors asserted that the amount of their debt as of the petition date was not the proper inquiry for eligibility. Instead, the debtors argued that the Court should not rely on the debtors’ schedules but a combination of the debtors’ schedules, the proofs of claims filed, and potential objections to some of those claims. The Court disagreed, holding that the eligibility limits of section 109(e) are based on the amount of debt as of the petition date. The Court relied on the debtors’ sworn schedules in determining that they were ineligible and thus reconverted the case back to chapter 7.

A debtor, who is both a farmer and a school principal, claimed a $10,000 exemption in farming equipment pursuant to Virginia Code section 34-26(7). The chapter 7 trustee objected, arguing that exemptions claimed under Virginia Code section 34-26(7) are limited to a debtor’s primary or principal occupation or trade. Because the language of the statute does not limit the exemption to a debtor’s primary or principal occupation or trade, the Court overruled the trustee’s objection.