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.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the Chapter 11 trustee, holding the trustee is entitled to recover approximately $280,000 in post-petition transfers and recover $40,000 in prepetition payments. The debtors repaid a post-petition loan that was not approved by the bankruptcy court and which was not in the ordinary course. The prepetition payments were preferential and the new value defense and ordinary course defenses do not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Trustee: Fowler Bell PLLC, Matthew D. Ellison

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claimed exemption. The debtor moved to reopen her case, add a personal injury cause of action to her schedules, and claim an exemption in a portion of the recovery on the cause of action. The court holds that Law v. Siegel is applicable, and thus the court does not have authority to deny the exemption even if bad faith exists. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Darren K. Mexic

Trustee: Jerry Burns

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court awards damages to the debtor for the creditor’s willful violation of the automatic stay. The debtor had an agreement with the tanning bed salon in which the salon would deduct a monthly payment from her debit card. Despite numerous notifications of the bankruptcy and the violation of the automatic stay, the salon continued to make the deductions post-petition. The court enters an award for damages that includes attorney fees and punitive damages. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Grant M. Axon

(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.

Judge: Bush

Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams

Appellee: Pro Se