Effective December 1, 2011, a number of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure were amended. Two of the amendments specifically address the information required on Proof of Claim forms.

The amendment to Rule 3001 (Proof of Claim) is expanded to require that additional supporting information be filed with proofs of claim in individual debtor cases. The amendment authorizes a court to impose sanctions against a creditor that fails to provide the required information.  

Northern Capital, Inc. v. The Stockton National Bank, et al. (In re Brooke Corporation), 2011 WL 4543484 (Bankr. D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to settle the dispute as to whether secured creditors can credit bid in connection with asset sales done pursuant to liquidating plans. The Third Circuit in the Philadelphia Newspapers case and the Fifth Circuit in the Pacific Lumber case held that secured creditors do not have a statutory right to credit bid their debt at a sale conducted under a plan of reorganization pursuant to which the debtor elects to provide the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

In re SUD Properties, Inc., Case No. 11-03833-8-RDD (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

In the Matter of Richard Louis Alexander (7th Cir., 2011) U.S. App. LEXIS 17110, (August 16, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Whittle Development, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. et al. (In re Whittle Development Inc.) 2011 WL 3268398 (Bankr. N.D. Tex., July 27, 2011)  

CASE SNAPSHOT

In a very recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,In re J.H. Investment Services, Inc., the court held that a creditor must take an affirmative step to pursue an unsecured claim, and that section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not automatically provide for a deficiency claim.  

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for the Aged), No. 10-4456 (3d Cir., Sept. 21, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.  

When a traditional nonbanking company files a case under the Bankruptcy Code, a judge is appointed to be the neutral arbiter of disputes that arise between the debtor and its creditors.