Morris v. Ark Valley Credit Union (In re Gracy), 522 B.R. 686 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2015) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a credit union’s security interest in a manufactured home by asserting his strong arm powers as a hypothetical lien creditor based on the lender’s failure to perfect its lien. The bankruptcy court declined to avoid the lien since it held there was no lien to avoid.
In re Sky Ventures, LLC, 523 B.R. 163 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2014) –
After a debtor obtained court approval to retroactively reject a lease as of the bankruptcy filing date, the landlord moved to reset the rejection date and for allowance of an administrative expense priority claim for post-petition rent.
In re Baber, 523 B.R. 156 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2014) –
The debtors objected to a proof of claim filed on behalf of a mortgagee based on issues arising from assignment of the mortgage note by the lender that originated the loan. The mortgagee responded by, among other things, challenging the standing of the debtors to raise these issues.
The Spanish Insolvency Act has been reformed several times recently to solve technical problems and to facilitate the continuity of economically or operationally viable companies. In the final quarter of 2014 alone, two partial reforms of the act were approved.
Royal Decree-Law 11/2014, of September 5, on urgent measures in insolvency matters
In re Carroll, 520 B.R. 491 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2014) –
A chapter 7 trustee sought to substantively consolidate the bankruptcy estates of individual chapter 7 debtors with the separate bankruptcy estate of their wholly owned limited liability company (LLC). Only the debtors, and none of the creditors, objected to substantive consolidation.
Liebzeit v. Intercity State Bank (In re Blanchard), 520 B.R. 740 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014) –
A Chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a mortgage on the debtors’ property using the “strong arm” powers of a hypothetical bona fide purchaser of real estate. The complication was that the debtors sold the real estate on land contract before they granted the mortgage.
The debtor made claims against a surety that issued a performance bond in connection with a construction contract. The surety contended that it was not liable for the consequential damage claims.