(S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2016)

The district court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The pro se debtors filed their notice of appeal of a stay relief order three days after the 14-day period per Bankruptcy Rule 8002 had expired. The debtors’ argument that the motion for relief from stay was not served upon them properly was not supported by the record and even if the allegations were true, they failed to explain the untimeliness of the notice of appeal after the order granting stay relief was entered. Opinion below.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 28, 2016)

(6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s finding that the Chapter 11 plan was proposed in bad faith. The plan proposed to pay small claims in full but over a 60-day period. This class of claims was technically impaired due to the delayed payment and it voted to accept the plan. The principle secured lender appealed. The Court finds that the plan was not proposed in good faith, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3), because it was designed to circumvent  § 1129(a)(10)’s requirement for an accepting impaired class of claims. Opinion below.

In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed  its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a  safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be  attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers.

On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.