Senior lienholders sued lenders holding junior liens on common collateral, arguing that the junior lienholders violated an intercreditor agreement. The bankruptcy court addressed the issues in the context of motions to dismiss the senior lienholder complaints.
A chapter 13 debtor sought a court determination that a mortgage loan was unsecured because there was a small typo in her name when the mortgage was indexed. The mortgagee brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Applicable state law included the following provisions:
The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.
In re Ramz Real Estate Co., LLC, 510 B.R. 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) –
An undersecured mortgagee objected to a debtor’s proposed plan of reorganization on several grounds, including that (1) the plan was not approved by a proper impaired class and (2) retention of equity by the debtor’s members violated the absolute priority rule.
In re Primes, 518 B.R. 466 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014) –
A mortgagee moved for relief from the automatic stay, arguing that it acquired title to property prior to the bankruptcy under a quit claim deed given to it by the debtor. However, the bankruptcy court agreed with the debtor that the deed, which was given in connection with a forbearance agreement, should be treated as an equitable mortgage.
Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.
In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –
A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer. A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers. The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.
While section 503(b)(9) claims deserve priority payment over general unsecured claims, they do not provide a basis for stripping a debtor’s defenses in determining the allowed amount of a section 503(b)(9) claim.
Note: Pepper Hamilton LLP serves as co-counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) in the ADI case. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not of the Committee.