Recently, the First Circuit held that a parent’s tuition payments on behalf of an adult child do not benefit the parent’s bankruptcy estate, and a Chapter 7 trustee may therefore claw the payments back as fraudulent transfers.

For retail companies contemplating filing for chapter 11 protection, not only is the time of year of the filing important, but also the expected time frame the case will last. This is particularly important given that the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code modified Section 365(d)(4) to provide that Debtors must assume or reject unexpired leases of nonresidential property within 120 days of the filing.

Previously on Asbestos Case Tracker, we took a look at the successful efforts of certain states to combat manipulation and abuse of the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. These states passed legislation that prevents claimants from being doubly compensated for alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products manufactured, used, or supplied by bankrupt and viable companies.

On November 27, 2019, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali issued a Memorandum Decision on Inverse Condemnation (“Memorandum Decision”) in PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric’s (together, “PG&E”) Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 19-30088).

Associations are all too familiar with bankruptcy serial filers disrupting foreclosure sales leading to frustrating and costly consequences for the Association. Each new bankruptcy filing by the debtor forces the Association to incur additional costs and increases the amount of debt owed while the debtor continues to live on the property without paying the Association.

In another loss for the cannabis industry, a district court recently affirmed the dismissal of chapter 11 petitions filed by companies that sold product used by both state-licensed marijuana growers and non-marijuana growers. The district court’s decision in Way to Grow, Inc. demonstrates that the door that was opened by the Ninth Circuit in Garvin v. Cook Invs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held, in a case of first impression in that circuit, that a secured creditor’s failure to turn over collateral repossessed prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition does not violate the automatic stay.

A copy of the opinion inIn re Denby-Peterson is available at: Link to Opinion.

The circuit courts continue to wrestle over the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay on creditors concerning turnover of a debtor’s impounded vehicle. Is a creditor required to automatically turn over the vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can it retain possession while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

“[A] secured creditor [has no] affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral to the bankruptcy estate immediately upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Oct. 28, 2019. In re Denby-Peterson, 2019 WL 5538570, *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019). Affirming the lower courts, the Third Circuit joined “the minority of our sister courts – the Tenth and D.C. Circuits” with its holding.

In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that sending a collection letter to a bankruptcy debtor provided that debtor with standing to file a claim based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the creditor outside of the bankruptcy case.