The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important preference decision on August 10, 2015.
What You Need to Know
Payments to creditors arising from a recent, single business transaction can be protected by the ordinary course of business defense.
C.W. Mining Company Case
The debtor C.W. Mining Company was failing. In an attempt to survive, it decided to try something new, specifically to increase coal production by converting its mining operations from continuous mining to a long wall system.
Trade creditors often face the issue of whether they are required to continue providing goods or services on credit to a customer that has filed chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Bankruptcy Code fails to specifically address the rights and obligations of a trade creditor facing this dilemma, resulting in a tug-of-war created by the debtor’s need for continued goods and services and the creditor’s need for assurance of payment.
Your tenant files for bankruptcy-what’s your move? Debtors who are lessees under real property leases have certain rights regarding their lease under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Essentially, the debtor has two options: 1) reject the lease or 2) assume the lease, provided that the debtor can cure any defaults existing under the lease. Additionally, the debtor may have the right to assume and assign the lease to a third party.
Setoff is commonly encountered in bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy situations. If there are mutual debts between two entities, either may generally offset the debts. These debts frequently arise where one entity is a vendor to a customer and selling on credit, and at the same time is also making occasional purchases on credit from the customer. If one entity owes $100 to a second entity but is owed $300 by this second entity, these mutual debts may be offset, leaving just the $200 owed by the second entity.
On June 15, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that a law firm could not recover fees it incurred in defending its own fee application.
THE ASARCO CASE
The case involved the copper company ASARCO LLC that filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2005 to deal with cash flow and environmental issues, among others.
Following up on our coverage in the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a debtor in a Chapter 7 case cannot ‘strip off’ or void a wholly unsecured junior mortgage under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, I had the opportunity to discuss the ruling with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN TV.
This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled that debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases cannot “strip off,” or completely void, junior mortgages that—based on the value of the property and the amount of claims secured by senior mortgages—are completely underwater.
Timely proof of claim filings by secured creditors have “been a thorn in the side of many Chapter 13 cases involving secured creditors,” according to Judge Wood in In re Pajian. However, a recent Seventh Circuit decision may cause the industry to revise their current process for proof of claim filings. Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) requires creditors to file proofs of claim within 90 days of the date set for the meeting of creditors. Bankruptcy courts have come to conflicting conclusions on whether Rule 3002(c)’s deadline applies to all creditors or merely unsecured ones.
A confluence of factors, including high debt, spiraling pension obligations, and lower sales and property tax revenues, has forced more municipalities to face insolvency than any time since the 1930s. The two largest municipal bankruptcies in history — Jefferson County, Ala., and Detroit, Mich. — recently ended. With the economy improving, we may never see the wave of municipal bankruptcies some commentators predicted.
On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the latest installmentin the jurisdictional saga of bankruptcy courts. As the highly anticipatedsequel to Stern v.