CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOHN S. PENFOUND; JILL L. PENFOUND,
Debtors.
___________________________________________

JOHN S. PENFOUND; JILL L. PENFOUND,
Appellants,
v.
DAVID W. RUSKIN, Chapter 13 Trustee,
Appellee.
   No. 19-2200
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
No. 2:18-cv-13333—Avern Cohn, District Judge.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
No. 2:18-bk-48940—Marci B. McIvor, Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 10, 2021
Before: GRIFFIN, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. In Davis v. Helbling (In re Davis), this court held that when a Chapter 13 debtor has regularly contributed to his 401(k) in the months leading up to his petition for bankruptcy, he may exclude that recurring amount from the calculation of his “projected disposable income.” See 960 F.3d 346, 355–57 (6th Cir. 2020). This case presents a twist to that fact pattern. What if a debtor has historically contributed to a 401(k) plan, but was unable to make further contributions in the months leading up to bankruptcy? John and Jill Penfound claim that such a track record should permit them to shield voluntary post-petition contributions from the reach of their creditors. Because neither the statute nor our caselaw supports the Penfounds’ position, we AFFIRM the judgment below.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL d/b/a McLaren St. Luke’s; WELLCARE PHYSICIANS GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; PROMEDICA INSURANCE CORPORATION; PARAMOUNT CARE, INC.; PARAMOUNT CARE OF MICHIGAN, INC.; PARAMOUNT INSURANCE COMPANY; PARAMOUNT PREFERRED OPTIONS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 21-3007
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:20-cv-02533—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: July 29, 2021
Decided and Filed: August 10, 2021
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; COLE and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. In phase one of this dispute, our court affirmed the Federal Trade Commission’s decision to block a merger of ProMedica Health System and St. Luke’s Hospital in Lucas County, Ohio. As part of the unwinding of the merger, ProMedica and St. Luke’s signed an agreement in which ProMedica’s insurance subsidiary, Paramount, agreed to maintain St. Luke’s as a within-network provider. But that contractual obligation came with a caveat: Paramount could drop St. Luke’s if ownership of the hospital changed. The qualification came to fruition when a large healthcare company based in Michigan, McLaren Health, merged with St. Luke’s. In response, Paramount ended its relationship with St. Luke’s, removing the hospital from its provider network.

All of this prompted a second antitrust charge against ProMedica, this one by St. Luke’s. It alleged that ProMedica’s refusal to do business with it violated the antitrust laws. The district court preliminarily enjoined ProMedica from pulling the plug on the agreement. Because ProMedica had a legitimate business explanation for ending the relationship, St. Luke’s is unlikely to show that ProMedica unlawfully refused to continue doing business with it. On top of that, it has little likelihood of establishing an irreparable injury given the option of money damages. For these reasons and those elaborated below, we vacate the preliminary injunction.