The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

Addressing an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, the Court in Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne), 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017), recently held that section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from an automatic stay violation and in defending the damages award on appeal.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit recently held, in Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), No. 16-3953, 2017 WL 4783009 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), that under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, if a party does not seek a stay pending appeal of a sale order, it is highly likely that any appeal of such sale will be determined statutorily moot. That was certainly the case here.

What Happened?

Background

The Bottom Line

On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently overturned its own prior guidance to hold that an official creditors’ committee had an unconditional statutory right to intervene in an adversary proceeding. The First Circuit joined the Second and Third Circuits to recognize that the right to intervene provided by the Bankruptcy Code is not limited to the main bankruptcy case, contrary to the long-standing rule in the Fifth Circuit. However, the First Circuit also held that the scope of intervention may be qualified, with limits set by the trial court on a case-by-case basis.

The Bankruptcy Code limits in many ways the rights of nondebtors under contracts with a debtor in bankruptcy. There are, however, some crucial exceptions, which Congress deemed important for the orderly function of the securities markets. In particular, agreements governing securities repurchase (or repo) transactions involving a financial institution may be terminated and liquidated notwithstanding the bankruptcy filing of the repo seller.

One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.

On October 4, 2017, the CFPB released an interim final rule and a proposed rule to amend certain provisions of its 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.