In bankruptcy, a debtor must relinquish assets to satisfy debts. But there are exceptions to this general rule. Certain assets may be exempted from a debtor’s bankruptcy under federal and state law. Other assets, which are subject to a contractual loan agreement and the security interest of a lender, may be “reaffirmed” by a debtor pursuant to a reaffirmation agreement.

Although the Supreme Court identified three guideposts for evaluating whether a punitive award is unconstitutionally excessive 23 years ago in BMW v. Gore and refined those guideposts 16 years ago in State Farm v.

“Standing” is a legal term that relates to whether a specific plaintiff holds a right to bring a lawsuit against specific defendants. Standing does not involve factual issues in foreclosure actions, such as the amount in default. Instead, it involves whether the specific entity acting as plaintiff in the lawsuit holds the legal right and authority to sue a particular defendant or defendants.

In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled the City of Chicago must return repossessed and impounded vehicles upon receiving a bankruptcy petition, or run the risk of violating the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Background

Federal law has long excepted student loans from discharge in bankruptcy in all but the rarest instances, recognizing the problems (and costs) associated with allowing borrowers to wipe out defaulted debts through a bankruptcy filing. However, as the issues of access to college and affordability become frequent topics in political discourse, new ideas for radical changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy have been proposed. Lenders and servicers need to be up to speed on those proposals and ready to adjust their operations if any become law.

Lenders and their counsel know that it is important to properly describe the collateral on which a lien (mortgage or security interest) is being granted. The purpose of this post is to discuss some recent decisions contrary to what many corporate counsel thought they knew concerning collateral descriptions in security agreements and UCC financing statements.

In March 2019, Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that lenders using clear and unambiguous language in their loan agreements may be entitled to prepayment premiums that they would have otherwise forfeited in a borrower’s bankruptcy. In In re 1141 Realty Owner LLC, Judge Bernstein acknowledged the general rule set forth in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decisions in In re AMR Corp. and In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.

In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision in an en banc opinion, Hurlburt v. Black, No. 17-2449, 2019 WL 2237966 (4th Cir. 2019).

On June 14, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion[i] affirming bankruptcy and district court decisions finding that, under the terms of the confirmed chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, the debtor’s lenders were not entitled to receive over thirty million dollars of post-petition default interest even though the lenders were fully secured.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when an otherwise avoidable transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. Several bankruptcy and appellate courts have addressed this issue in recent years, with inconsistent results.