Ring v. First Niagara Bank, N.A. (In re Sterling United, Inc.), 519 B.R. 586 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover as preferences payments made by the debtor to a lender and proceeds of collateral liquidation received by the lender based on arguments regarding whether UCC financing statements adequately perfected the lender’s security interests.
In re Triple A & R Inv., Inc., 519 B.R. 581 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2014) –
A mortgagee moved for relief from the automatic stay based on the debtor’s prepetition consent to stay relief. The debtor argued that a prepetition waiver was unenforceable.
In re Killmer, 513 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –
After reopening a bankruptcy case, a mortgagee moved for a determination that a post-petition delinquent property tax sale was void because it was held in violation of the automatic stay. In response, the tax authority requested retroactive annulment of the stay.
Waldschmidt v. Singletary Construction LLC (In re Tackett), 516 B.R. 498 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A bankruptcy trustee sought turnover of profits from the sale of homes constructed by a contractor. The trustee contended that there were contracts between the debtor and the contractor pursuant to which the debtor agreed to reimburse the contractor for its costs plus pay a $15,000 contractor’s fee for each home.
While it is common practice in Canada to seek certain emergency orders on an ex parte basis (i.e. where only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge), applicants for such orders are held to a high standard of candour with the court.
Many secured creditors see their position in absolute terms. They rely on their general security and aggressively assert their priority over unsecured creditors, such as trade creditors. However, a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal(306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd. (Alrange Container Services), 2014 ONCA 548) demonstrates that creative arguments by trade creditors may allow them to take priority over even secured creditors in certain circumstances, by using trust principles to remove assets from the estate.
Weiss v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Thibault), 518 B.R. 635 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a mortgage using his “strongarm” powers on the basis that it was not properly recorded because the spelling of the debtor’s last name in the mortgage was not the “correct” spelling.
Rogan v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Partin), 517 B.R. 770 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid mortgages on three properties using his “strong arm” powers, arguing that they were improperly recorded and thus did not provide constructive notice to a purchaser or lien creditor.
Agin v. Dookhan (In re Hultin), 516 B.R. 190 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a transfer of the debtor’s real property using his “strong arm” powers based on an argument that the deed conveying the property did not provide constructive notice since it was not properly indexed in the real estate records.