There are unique and competing interests between the United States Bankruptcy Code1 and federal and state environmental laws. One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is to allow a debtor to have a "fresh start." On the other hand, environmental laws are intended to require responsible parties to comply with environmental standards for the protection of human health and the environment. As a result of these competing interests, there has been extensive litigation related to the interplay between the bankruptcy and environmental regimes.
The Bankruptcy Code often instructs a trustee or debtor to perform an act or make an election within a certain time. Sometimes the relevant provisions are intended to benefit a party in interest who is affected by a debtor’s or trustee’s action or election. Unfortunately, some of the provisions that prescribe a trustee or debtor to act fail to provide a remedy to the affected party in interest in the event the trustee or debtor does not act in compliance with the Code.
On April 3, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to move an action, filed by a group of online payday lenders (defendants), from Pennsylvania to Texas. The defendants—who filed for bankruptcy in Texas last year—sought to centralize lawsuits referred to by the court as ”rent-a-bank” and “rent-a-tribe” schemes.
As the effective date for the CFPB’s successor in interest and bankruptcy billing statement requirements quickly approaches, one question we’ve heard multiple times is whether a mortgage servicer is required to know when a confirmed successor in interest is in bankruptcy. The question stems from upcoming provisions in Regulations X and Z that will collectively say, in essence, that a confirmed successor in interest must be treated as if he or she is a borrower for the purposes of the mortgage servicing rules.
On March 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed both the in rem jurisdiction of a federal district court sitting in admiralty vis-a-vis an intervening bankruptcy, and in a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the proper approach to setting the amount of maintenance an injured seaman is entitled to receive prior to trial. In Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir.
A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a debtor’s asserted violation of the court’s discharge injunction, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, *20 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018).
EV Energy Partners, L.P., along with thirteen (13) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10814). EV, based in Houston, Texas, is an upstream oil & gas developer operating throughout the United States.
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that comity outweighed the parties' contractual choice of jurisdiction. Although claims would be allowed to be brought in the US, any recoveries would need to be pursued in Italian insolvency proceedings.
Energy Coal, an Italian company engaged in trading coal and other raw materials, commenced debt restructuring, or Concordato Preventivo ("Italian Proceedings"), proceedings in Italy in 2015. The restructuring plan allowed for the business to continue as a going concern and pay creditors from future revenues.
Reprinted with permission of the American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review. Originally published at 26 Amer. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 115 (2018).
For the third time in less than two years, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a chapter 7 debtor who does not reaffirm the secured debt or redeem the property must surrender the property. In re Woide, No. 17-10776 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018).