One consequence of the depressed real estate market has been numerous Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases wherein the debtor seeks confirmation of a “dirt-for-debt” plan. In such a plan, instead of paying the secured creditor the value of the real property securing the debt through restructured loan terms, the debtor proposes to convey part or all of the real property securing the debt to the creditor in full satisfaction of its secured claim.
In turbulent economic times, clients often ask us how they can find out whether a particular company or person is in bankruptcy. While we can run quick searches for this information, there are ways you can find this information on your own. If a quick Google search does not yield results, two resources maintained by the U.S. federal courts are the Multi-Court Voice Case Information System (McVCIS) and Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). The first resource is free, and the second requires setting up an online account for payment of relatively small fees.
When a creditor is the target of a bankruptcy trustee or debtor’s claim to take back money paid before bankruptcy on a legitimate debt, it’s bitter justice. The concept is fair enough: pulling funds back into the bankruptcy estate so they can be redistributed to creditors in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme and on a pro rata basis. In practice, though, it’s hard to see the fairness of giving back money you were entitled to receive. Two statutory amendments that will take effect in late February of 2020 have the potential to put a damper on some preference claims.
Signing the Family Farmer Relief (FFR) Act of 2019 was like opening a pressure release valve. American farmers have suffered increasing financial stress this year from numerous sources, so a change in the law making Chapter 12 available to more farmers is likely to push the number of bankruptcy filings higher.
LEGAL CHANGES
If you have ever been a creditor concerned about a debtor not paying debts as they become due or paying other creditors while ignoring your demands, then forcing the debtor into an involuntarily bankruptcy may be an option. An involuntary petition can be filed only under Chapter 7 (liquidation) or Chapter 11 (reorganization) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
In difficult economic times, debtors’ attorneys closely review credit reports looking for potential legal claims against creditors. Long after a debtor has been discharged from bankruptcy, creditors can find themselves defending claims of improper credit reporting. A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates the trouble facing creditors who furnish incorrect reports of discharged debt. See In re Adams (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010).
When a loan is secured by real property, the current value of the property will be a determining factor in how the lender is treated in bankruptcy and will drive the lender’s bidding strategy in foreclosure. Valuing real property has never been an exact science. Volatility in the residential and commercial real estate markets over the last two years has made it even harder for lenders to rely with confidence on the appraisals they obtain to plan and predict how they will fare in bankruptcy or in foreclosure.
In a recent decision welcomed by creditors, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reversed a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 debtor’s plan because the debtor engaged in “obvious gerrymandering” in order to secure the votes necessary to obtain confirmation of the plan.
I. Facts
Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors. In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case. Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank