CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

In a recent case from the Business Court in Brunswick County, a North Carolina Judge held that Defendants could assert a claim for breach of the duty to negotiate in good faith finding that negotiations for a loan modification and renewal gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties had entered into a “binding preliminary agreement.” RREF BB Acquisitions v. MAS Properties, LLC, No. 13 CVS 193, 2015 NCBC 58, 2015 WL 3646992 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 9, 2015).

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in InRe Reuben Samuel Royal, Case No, 14-07134-DMW (May 2, 2016) recently concluded that the Chapter 13 debtors cannot surrender a vehicle back to the lender after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan even though the vehicle was depreciating or declining in value.

CentsAbility: Creditors' Rights Law Update

The Fourth Circuit has held that in a case where the rate of interest on a residential mortgage loan had been increased upon default, a Chapter 13 Plan proposing to “cure” default under 11 U.S.C. §1322(b) is an impermissible modification barred by §1322(b)(2).

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

A creditor recently received a wake-up call from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina in In re Crawford, an opinion issued by the Court on June 8, 2015. In Crawford, the Court granted the debtors’ motion to compel their automobile lienholder to release its lien after the debtors made all payments under their Chapter 13 Plan. In addition, the Court awarded the debtors $7,325.00 in attorneys’ fees for the creditor’s failure to comply with the terms of the confirmed Plan.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.