A recent decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit, Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company v. Keach,[1] ruled that a lender (Wheeling) did not have a perfected security interest in a business interruption insurance policy or its proceeds. The decision in Wheeling is inconsistent with a prior court decision that dealt with business interruption insurance as proceeds of collateral and was more favorable to secured creditors, and therefore should be of concern to lenders.
Background
In a sternly-worded, sixty-page opinion last week, the Sixth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed a bankruptcy court’s $200,000 sanctions order against an attorney that arose from a plethora of litigation over an ultimately disallowed claim in what became a complicated bankruptcy.
This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing a number of published and unpublished decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit (the “BAP”) issued a number of published and unpublished decisions in the fourth quarter of 2014 that impact both consumer and business bankruptcy practice throughout the circuit.
In its opinion in LTF Real Estate Company, INc. v. Expert South Tulsa, LLC (In re Expert South Tulsa), 2014 WL 6845675 (10thCir.
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank (In re Bullard), U.S., No. 14-116 (cert. granted 12/12/14). The Court's decision in this case will resolve a circuit split with regard to whether an order denying confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is a final order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The decision has the potential to impact Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit contributed to a circuit split regarding jurisdiction in its recent decision in Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Rivera (In re Atlas IT Export Corp.).
Who are we kidding? The topic of statutory insiders has been a blog favorite, year after year.
In Part I of our entry on Weinman v. Walker (In re Adam Aircraft Indus.
An executive’s right to severance payments isn’t always written in stone, even if his employer agrees to provide them. In this post, we described how one exec lost his severance pay after the Federal Reserve decided that his employer, a bank, was in a “troubled condition” at the time.