After substantial consummation of creditors’ chapter 11 plan, debtor filed multiple motions seeking various forms of relief and discovery, none of which had merit. As the case was ready for entry of a final decree, the court addressed each motion and denied all relief.

Court entered a declaratory judgment that plaintiff’s debt to defendant was nondischargeable because it arose from fraud. Defendant moved for reconsideration. The court modified one finding of fact, clarified that it had not entered a money judgment, and otherwise denied all requested relief.

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.