Bankruptcy Judge James J. Tancredi appeared to give a chapter 7 debtor one last chance to avoid being incarcerated.

An appeals court ruled recently that chapter 5 avoidance actions are property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate that can be sold in section 363 sales. In re Simply Essentials, LLC, No. 22-2011, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21814 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2023). The decision follows similar rulings by other appeals courts.

In an appeal involving a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed that the borrower’s use of the 20-year treasury bond rate sufficiently ensured that the total present value of future payments to the lender over the plan period equaled or exceeded the allowed value of the claim.

A copy of the opinion in Farm Credit Services of America v. William Topp is available at: Link to Opinion.

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration did not have authority to forgive student loans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). Despite this defeat, the Biden administration is still working to reduce the burden of student loans. Advocates for student loan relief argue that student loans can be a crushing form of debt in part because of their treatment in bankruptcy. It is the common belief that student loans, unlike other forms of unsecured debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.

A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.

When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a contrary trial court ruling and joined with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in holding that a Chapter 13 trustee is not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.

A copy of the opinion in Evans v. McCallister (In re Evans) is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that, at a minimum, a substantial change in circumstances is required to justify modification of a bankruptcy plan under Section 1229.

The Eighth Circuit BAP also determined that the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the debtors met their burden of showing an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, despite multiple changes by the debtor, nor was the bankruptcy court’s finding that the fourth modified plan was feasible and confirmable.