Unsecured creditors frequently find themselves in the lurch when a company files for bankruptcy. One of the few mechanisms for recovering the value of goods supplied to a debtor prior to a bankruptcy case is an administrative expense claim under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. In an administratively solvent bankruptcy case, an administrative expense claim will allow a creditor to obtain payment in full of the value of goods received by the debtor within the twenty-day period immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date.

Finally, after several years of debate, major changes have been approved that will have a profound impact on consumer bankruptcy cases. On April 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States, through Chief Justice John Roberts, submitted to Congress amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure which set forth extensive changes dealing with forms and filing of claims.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to void the foreclosure of a mortgage lien that was executed by the debtors before bankruptcy, but recorded while the automatic stay was in effect. 

When a defaulted borrower files a bankruptcy petition, two important events occur: (1) a bankruptcy “estate” comprised of certain assets of the debtor is created; and (2) all collection efforts (and pending litigation) against the debtor or its assets are automatically stayed. Accordingly, the court’s determination of whether items are or are not property of the debtor and of the bankruptcy estate is of critical importance to the creditor’s ability to collect on its debt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that a borrowers’ federal court claim attempting to void a foreclosure sale based on a prior demand to cancel the loan under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) was barred by claim preclusion for failure to raise the issue in a prior state court action.

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

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding without leave to amend, holding that:

(a) the debtors failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law;

(b) the debtors failed to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not third-party beneficiaries of the pooling and servicing agreement;

In its recent decision Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a structured dismissal of a chapter 11 case that provides for distributions that fail to follow the standard priority rules, unless the affected creditors consent to such treatment.

Recently, the bankruptcy court presiding over the Energy Futures chapter 11 case issued an opinion analyzing the interplay between an intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall and payments to be made under the debtors’ multi-step reorganization plan. The court rejected a secured creditor’s argument that the intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall was triggered by one step of that reorganization.

In a bankruptcy preferential transfer dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the bankruptcy trustee could recover true overdraft covering deposits, while deposits covering intra-day overdrafts were not recoverable.

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

In the May 2017 issue of Debt Dialogue, we discussed the recent decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S.