On October 4, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that chapter 7 debtors who file a statement of intention to surrender real property in bankruptcy cannot later contest a foreclosure action, and bankruptcy courts have broad power and authority to sanction violations. Failla v. CitiBank, N.A., case no. 15-15626 (11th Cir. October 4, 2016).

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules has proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and the Official Bankruptcy Forms and requested that the proposals be circulated to the bench, bar, and public for comment. The proposed amendments, Advisory Committee reports, and other information are posted on the Judiciary’s website.

On June 9, 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals, in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2016 BL 184648 (N.Y. June 9, 2016), reversed a lower court decision, consistent with the overwhelming majority of federal court decisions, that the common interest doctrine under New York law is not limited to communications made in connection with pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.

Just when courts appeared to be developing a consensus on how to value affordable housing projects in bankruptcy, an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has muddied the landscape. In In re Sunnyslope Housing Ltd.

CSMS# 16-000814 dated September 13, 2016, released scenarios (updated on September 8, 2016) to the Hanjin Shipping Co. bankruptcy filing. Hanjin Shipping Co., one of the world’s largest shipping lines, recently filed for court receivership in South Korea. In anticipation of possible disruptions due to Hanjin Shipping vessels or cargo arriving to U.S.

In the recent decision of Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Assoc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 2016 WL 3621180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016), the U.S.

On August 29, 2016, the Third Circuit released a precedential opinion (the “Opinion”) which opined on whether filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition could qualify as tortious interference under state law. The Third Circuit’s Opinion is available here. This Opinion was issued in Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII, LLC, Case No. 15-2622. The District Court had ruled that the tortious interference claim was preempted by § 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Wall Street Journal has recently observed that if Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. fails in its attempts to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy proceedings in Korea, it would represent the largest container shipping company to date to collapse. In the meantime, its creditors have apparently been active in Chinese, Singaporean, and American ports.

On August 31, 2016, Hanjin Shipping Co. filed for bankruptcy protection in South Korea. Creditors “gave up the ship,” so to speak, and stopped the bleeding. Two days later, Hanjin filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey for Chapter 15, which provides a mechanism in the U.S. for resolving problems that arise in cross-border bankruptcies. Three out of four U.S. shippers reportedly have cargo on Hanjin vessels, so the repercussions of the bankruptcy filings are widespread.

In a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that “filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt that is time-barred does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt.”