Donald R. Rose joined the firm in 1978 and is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law. He practices in the areas of real estate, probate, bankruptcy and business/corporate law. Don is a former Chair of the Probate and Trust section of the Fayette County Bar Association.
In re Appalachian Fuels, LLC, 493 B.R. 1, 22(B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2013)
MGM represented the unsecured creditors committee of one of the sister companies that was a joint debtor in this case. This case concerned whether MGM’s client was liable for the environmental reclamation obligations of its sister company based on state law derivative liability or federal law substantive consolidation. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit agreed with the bankruptcy court to find that the facts did not justify piercing of the corporate veil of a company so that it was liable for its sister company’s environmental obligations, and while the companies were jointly administered for procedural purposes, joint procedural administration was not the same as substantive consolidation.
Bankruptcy/piercing corporate veil/debt/related entitiesLitigation Transactional Law
Owen v. DCR Mortg. III Sub I, LLC, 337 S.W.3d 652 (Ky. App. 2011)
MGM represented the mortgagee in this case. This case concerned the efforts of a mortgagee to collect in state court the amounts due from the personal guarantors of the loan after the property was sold during the mortgagor’s bankruptcy proceeding. The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that the fact that the personal guarantors were not listed as creditors in the mortgagor’s bankruptcy proceeding did not preclude the mortgagee from collecting the deficiency amounts due from them.
Bankruptcy/personal guarantee/collection/debtLitigation Transactional Law
Berry v. Thomas (2000-CA-000670-MR, Court of Appeals 2001)
After an estate dispute arose, one of the decedent’s natural daughters who was born out of wedlock sought to have her father’s paternity established. The decedent’s widow (the second wife) and her children denied the daughter’s claim and rights to the estate. The Court held the daughter was in fact fathered by the decedent. The widow appealed the summary judgment of the trial court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. MGM helped to prove paternity through thorough deposition testimony, the law in effect at the time of the daughter’s birth, and the discovery of documents prepared by the widow which illustrated her knowledge that the daughter had been fathered by her husband.
Prenuptial agreement/probate/void prenuptial agreement/failure to adequately disclose assets/divorce revokes will/KRS 394.090/change in lawLitigation Transactional Law