On May 18th, the Second Circuit, addressing the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, held that a lender with a purchase-money security interest in a car is entitled to an unsecured claim with regard to a deficiency it incurred upon the surrender and sale of the car. The deficiency claim derives from the contract between the parties and background state law. In the absence of a Bankruptcy Code provision expressly disallowing it, such an unsecured claim may be maintained.

On May 5th, the Senate voted 93-5 to adopt an amendment proposed by Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby that would give the FDIC authority to liquidate failing financial institutions without the creation of a controversial $50 billion "bailout" fund. Instead, the FDIC would use a new line of credit with the Treasury Department, supported by the assets of the failed institution, to pay the liquidation expenses.

On April 26th, the Eleventh Circuit held that the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act prohibits a federal district court from enjoining the FDIC. A trial court had initially imposed a TRO against a failing bank prohibiting it from taking any action with respect to $1 billion worth of mortgage proceeds it held in trust for petitioner, Bank of America, who held legal title. When the FDIC was appointed receiver, the FDIC moved to dissolve the TRO. The trial court refused converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction.

On April 12th, the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor has standing to bring an avoidance action even when the bankruptcy trustee does not. It further held that the defendant mortgage company perfected its lien by equitably converting the lien on plaintiff's manufactured home to one for real property when the state court entered judgment on defendant's lis pendens claim. Since that order was entered during the 90 day preference period, the lien was avoidable.

On April 1st, the FDIC closed on a sale of an equity interest in a limited liability company (LLC) created to hold certain assets transferred from 19 failed bank receiverships. The purchaser of the interest in the Multibank Structured Transaction Single Family Residential 2010-1 is Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation. The sale was conducted through a competitive auction held on February 24, 2010. Nine different qualified groups submitted bids to purchase either a 50% leveraged ownership interest or a 20% unleveraged ownership interest in the newly formed LLC.

On March 24th, the Sixth Circuit joined seven other federal appellate courts in holding that negative equity is included in a creditor's purchase money security interest and is not subject to a bankruptcy court's cramdown authority under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Nuvell Credit Corp. v. Westfall.  

Introduction

This week, in a 2-1 decision affirming the District Court’s reversal of a ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that secured creditors do not have a right as a matter of law to credit bid their claim at an auction pursuant to a plan of reorganization where the debtor intends to impose the plan on its secured creditors through a “cramdown” under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code; i.e., a plan providing the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their secured claim.

On March 18th, the Fifth Circuit held that a U.S. bankruptcy court may offer avoidance relief under a foreign country's law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding. Plaintiffs had been appointed trustees by a Nevis court in a Nevis winding up petition. Plaintiffs filed a Chapter 15 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. alleging that the debtor had transferred assets to put them out of the reach of the Nevis court. The U.S.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that should concern anyone doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy. In short, the court ruled that a company that supplied $1.9 million worth of goods to a debtor after the petition date had to return the debtor's payment. The reason? The debtor did not have permission from the court or its secured creditor to use the money. The payments were for value given post-petition and were apparently made in accordance with the pre-petition practice between the parties.