The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (June 6, 2022)

Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.

DRI- The Voice of the Defense Bar

The ability of secured creditors to credit bid in sales conducted under bankruptcy plans of reorganization is an important right that protects them against low bids from rival purchasers. A secured creditor is typically permitted to offset, or bid, its secured allowed claim against the purchase price in a sale of collateral conducted under section 363(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

In Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., --- S.Ct. ----, 2011 WL 66438 (U.S. 2011), the United States Supreme Court took up the question of whether a Chapter 13 debtor who owns his or her vehicle outright (“free and clear”) may claim an allowance for car ownership costs and thereby reduce the amount that he or she will repay creditors. In her first opinion, Justice Kagan answered simply—no. The Ransom opinion has been seen as a victory for not only credit card companies like the one involved but other creditors, as well.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel that held that a bank which loaned an individual the funds to buy a motor vehicle could not overcome the avoidance of its lien as a preferential transfer after the person filed for bankruptcy. The Court so found because the lien at issue was not perfected under Kentucky law within the time frame necessary to be considered an exception to the avoidance of preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.

A recent defeat by a student-loan creditor could turn out to be a victory for the industry overall.

On March 23, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided an important case concerning a student-loan creditor’s motion to void a bankruptcy court’s judgment.1 The creditor brought this motion after initiating collection efforts and in response to the debtor’s request to cease and desist those efforts.

Under BAPCPA, enacted in 2005, a Bankruptcy Court may not approve a Chapter 13 plan which does not provide for the payment of all unsecured claims in full if the plan does not devote all of the debtor’s projected disposable income over the life of the plan to repayment of the unsecured creditors.

Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.