The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the trial court from considering the plaintiff’s claims because she was not challenging or seeking to set aside an underlying non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding under Colorado law.

Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine what effect, if any, the non-judicial proceeding had under the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held, in a case of first impression, that “the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from the violation of the automatic stay and in defending the damages award on appeal.”

A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion.

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled.

In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. 

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that a creditor held an unenforceable lien against a debtor’s real property because the property was owned by the entireties and the lien was thus avoidable under Bankruptcy Code § 522(f)(1). 

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed final judgments against corporate borrowers and guarantors in three separate cases, holding that:

(a) the Nevada statute limiting the amount of the deficiency recoverable in a foreclosure action was preempted by federal law as applied to transferees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);

(b) the plaintiff bank had standing to enforce the loans it acquired from the FDIC; 

(c) the bank was not issue-precluded from showing that the subject loans had been transferred to it;

In Short

The Situation: In cross-border restructuring cases, court-approved insolvency protocols are applied to facilitate communication between U.S. and foreign courts and standardize certain common procedures. The protocols are sometimes adapted to address case-specific issues.

The Result: Case-specific provisions tend to address information-sharing guidelines, claims reconciliation, the management of assets, and dispute resolution.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to compel the trustee to abandon their home as property of the estate because it had little equity and thus little value for unsecured creditors.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that debts arising from a scheme to deprive mortgagees of surplus foreclosure sale proceeds were non-dischargeable, affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment against the debtor in consolidated adversary proceedings filed by various lenders that held first mortgage liens.

A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion.

In the March/April 2013 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an opinion by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluding that a chapter 15 debtor’s sale of claims against Bernard Madoff’s defunct brokerage company was not subject to review as an asset sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.