In Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019), the First Circuit recently ruled that “special circumstances” does not authorize a bankruptcy court to use its equitable powers to contravene the numerosity requirement for an involuntary petition under section 303(b)(1) of the Code. This twelve year dispute did not end well for the petitioning creditors.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2017, which impose affirmative obligations on secured creditors to protect their rights to distributions in a bankruptcy case. Previously, Bankruptcy Rule 3002(a) required only unsecured creditors and equity security holders to file proofs of claim or proofs of interest in a bankruptcy. Although often recommended, it was not statutorily necessary for a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in order to protect its rights.

The purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) is a powerful tool that enables lenders to take priority over the holders of prior perfected security interests that cover the same collateral. Those lenders seeking to obtain a PMSI often take great care to comply with the statutory perfection requirements. Yet, the notice requirements for a PMSI in inventory are every bit as important. A secured party that fails to comply with the PMSI notice requirements is likely to find its security interest subordinate to prior conflicting interests.

Judge Drain has now issued a long-awaited Order on Remand from the Second Circuit’s decision in Momentive Performance Materials determining the appropriate cramdown interest rate applicable to replacement notes issued by Momentive.

In a comprehensive report issued last week, the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy proposed recommendations that would allow student loans to be easier to discharge in bankruptcy, citing the staggering $1.5 trillion in student loan debt held in the United States and the current difficulties with discharging this type of debt in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.

Last year, a California Bankruptcy Court wiped out $10.2 million in default interest (“DRI”) when it ruled that a 5% DRI was an unenforceable penalty in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case where the construction lender fully recovered principal, interest, and other costs of collection.

A Georgia bankruptcy court on April 17 issued a significant ruling that breaks new ground concerning how future claimants’ representatives in asbestos bankruptcies (FCRs) are chosen. In In re The Fairbanks Co., Case No. 18-41768-PWB (Bankr. N.D. Ga.

Addressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors and provide the debtor with a discharge of all pre-confirmation liabilities.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.