Arthur C. Clarke famously observed: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Our regulatory, legislative, and judicial systems illustrate this principle whenever new technology exceeds the limits of our existing legal framework and collective legal imagination. Cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin, has proven particularly “magical” in the existing framework of bankruptcy law, which has not yet determined quite what bitcoin is—a currency, an intangible asset, a commodity contract, or something else entirely.

With the holiday season now upon us, analysts are closely watching the restaurant industry, particularly the casual dining segment. Reminiscent of the conditions in 2008-2009, many are speculating whether the increase in online consumer shopping that served as a catalyst for the current “Retail Apocalypse” will reduce crucial holiday shopper foot traffic and push some teetering dining chains over the edge.

Courts and professionals have wrestled for years with the appropriate approach to use in setting the interest rate when a debtor imposes a chapter 11 plan on a secured creditor and pays the creditor the value of its collateral through deferred payments under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Bankruptcy Code. Secured lenders gained a major victory on October 20, 2017, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a market rate of interest is preferred to a so-called “formula approach” in chapter 11, when an efficient market exists.

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled.

In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. 

Here is the scenario: You are a creditor. You hold clear evidence of a debt that is not disputed by the borrower, an individual. That evidence of debt could be in the form of a note, credit agreement or simply an invoice. You originated the debt, or perhaps instead it was transferred to you — it does not matter for this scenario. At some point the borrower fails to pay on the debt when due. For whatever reason, months or even years pass before you initiate collection efforts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a debtor corporation’s sole shareholder and third parties who sold real property and services to the sole shareholder could be liable for fraudulent transfers. 

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that where the beneficiary of a land trust filed a motion to intervene in a foreclosure, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene because the beneficiary filed the motion after the trial court had entered the order confirming the foreclosure sale.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to the Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a case based on a final foreclosure order entered in Texas state court, and that the borrowers’ due process rights were not violated where the state court entered a foreclosure order without first having a hearing, in violation of the state statute. 

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision of the Appellate Court, and held that a settlement that a borrower and a lender reached during mediation pursuant to the Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program was enforceable because the borrower fulfilled all contingent terms making the agreement permanent. 

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that a creditor held an unenforceable lien against a debtor’s real property because the property was owned by the entireties and the lien was thus avoidable under Bankruptcy Code § 522(f)(1). 

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.