The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity over claims which sought a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale pending the review of a loan modification application because the amount of controversy did not exceed $75,000.

In so ruling, the Court held that, for claims which merely seek a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale, the amount in controversy is not the value of the underlying loan.

Companies expend substantial resources managing the credit risk of customers, to protect the value of their sales. Many companies, however, do not always apply credit risk analysis to its supply chain, focusing instead on procurement at the lowest cost, and compliance with a myriad of regulatory issues. However, credit risk in the supply chain may actually pose a greater potential risk of loss. If a supplier fails to deliver product on time, the manufacturing process can be interrupted or halted, potentially idling plants at a significant daily cost to the company.

In a prior post, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

SeaStar Holdings, Inc., along with two of its subsidiaries and affiliates, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10039). SeaStar operates a passenger airline based in San Juan, Puerto Rico under the name Seaborne Airlines.

Adding to the growing split of authority among California’s various state appellate courts, and among various federal courts in California, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role.

The Bottom Line

Addressing an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, the Court in Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne), 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017), recently held that section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from an automatic stay violation and in defending the damages award on appeal.

What Happened?

Life Settlements Absolute Return I, LLC, a special purpose vehicle investing in life insurance policies, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-13030). The Debtors estimate their assets to be between $10,000,001 and $50 million and their liabilities to be between $100,000,001 and $500 million.

Rentech WP U.S., Inc. (NASDAQ: RTKH) and an affiliate have filed chapter 11 petitions before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 17-12958). The cases have been assigned to the Honorable Christopher S. Sontchi. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Fulghum Fibres, Rentech offers a full range of integrated fibre services including, wood chipping, operations, marketing, trading and vessel loading.

Amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 3002

Certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) will become effective in all cases commencing after December 1, 2017.1

The amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 3002 is significant. As explained in detail below, the amendment does the following:

A recent decision from a trial court sitting in Illinois calls into question whether debt collectors can rely on a widely used disclosure when collecting debt that may be subject to an expired limitations period.

A copy of the opinion in Richardson v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.