If Party A files an involuntary bankruptcy case against Party B that is contested by Party B, and if Party A fails to convince a bankruptcy court that Party B should be a debtor in such involuntary bankruptcy case, the general rule is that Party A must pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Party B in successfully obtaining dismissal of the involuntary filing.
In its decision in Lazzo v. Bank (In re Schupach Investments, L.L.C.), 2015 WL 6685416 (10th Cir. 2015), the Tenth Circuit sent a clear message to attorneys representing debtors-in-possession: make sure you have authority to represent the debtor if you want to be compensated from the estate.
The Bankruptcy Forms Modernization Project is an initiative that will require filers to use new bankruptcy forms effective December 1, 2015. The new forms are part of a forms modernization project that was started by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in 2008. The petitions, schedules and other official forms will all be revised, reformatted and renumbered. The goal of the initiative is to improve the interface between technology and the forms to increase efficiency and reduce the need to produce the same information in multiple formats.
On November 23, 2015, Southern District of Florida District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra issued an opinion affirming an order granting a creditor's motion to compel surrender of real property pursuant to a statement of intention entered by Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Judge Paul G. Hyman in the bankruptcy proceedings of David and Donna Failla. Failla v. Citibank, N.A. (In re Failla), Civ. No.: 15-80328-CIV-KAM, (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2015), aff'd, 529 B.R. 786 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2014).
Several of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced on December 1, 2015. For creditors, the most notable changes will be to two forms: the Proof of Claim form, Form 410, and the Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment, Form 410A. These changes reflect an effort by the Bankruptcy Courts to elicit a clear and complete picture of what the debtor owes and how much must be paid to cure a pre-bankruptcy arrearage. Due to the Bankruptcy Court’s focus on clarity, creditors are well advised to closely follow the claim forms and accompanying instructions.
The Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule specifying its procedures for emergency lendingunder Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Board’s authority to engage in emergency lending has been limited to programs and facilities with “broad-based eligibility” that have been established with the approval
Insider creditors “waived [the] right to charge default interest on” their claims and “failed to prove” their claim for non-default interest, held the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit (“BAP”) on Nov. 6, 2015. In re Autterson, 2015 WL 6789168, at *4 (10th Cir. BAP, Nov. 6, 2015).
On November 30, 2015, the US Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule detailing its procedures for emergency lending under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act limited the Federal Reserve Board’s emergency lending authority to programs and facilities with “broad-based eligibility” established with the approval of the US Secretary of Treasury and prohibited lending to entities that are insolvent, among other things.
On December 1, 2015, the Official Forms for use in bankruptcy courts will be updated. The changes were made as part of a forms modernization effort. Almost all of the Official Forms are being updated, including the bankruptcy petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs, as well as the proof of claim form (formerly Form B 10) used to assert a creditor’s claim in a bankruptcy case.
Bankruptcy practitioners routinely advise secured creditor clients to file protective proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings despite those clients’ ability to ignore bankruptcy proceedings and decline filing claims without imperiling their lien due to the protections afforded by state law foreclosure rights.[1] But a recent Ninth Circuit decision is causing attorneys and clients to reconsider whether this traditionally conservative approach is simply too risky in Chapter 13 cases. HSBC Bank v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), No. 13-35412, 2015 WL 5730015 (9th Cir. Oct.