The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court’s final order implementing the district court’s order directing turnover of assets to the bankruptcy estate was valid, because it resolved a core proceeding. The appellants contended that it was a non-core proceeding and thus required a district court order to be final. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Appellants: Jordan Law P.C., Terrence M Jordan

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently faced a question of first impression: whether an allowed postpetition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. In concluding that it can, the court took a closer look at the nature of a preference claim.

Facts and Arguments

On August 9, 2016, Judge Kevin Carey of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an Order both dismissing a complaint and striking a defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority. The decision was issued in the Quantum Foods bankruptcy, in the adversary proceeding No. 16-50045. A copy of the Opinion is available here.

On August 4, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued updated servicing rules to expand foreclosure protections for homeowners and struggling borrowers. The new measures include expanding consumer protections to surviving family members, clarifying borrower protections in servicing transfers, providing periodic statements to borrowers in bankruptcy, and requiring servicers to provide certain foreclosure protections more than once over the life of the loan, among other protections.

The operator of the Fox and Hound, Bailey’s Sports Grille and Champps Kitchen and Bar chains filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Wednesday, August 10th, listing debts that significantly exceeded assets.

Last Call Guarantor LLC and at least eight affiliates (“Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The filing constitutes the second bankruptcy filing for chain restaurants.

Introduction

The Supreme Court will consider these key questions next term in Czyzewski v Jevic Holding Corp:(1)

Upon receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy case, the prudent debt collector typically files a proof of claim, in the hope of receiving some distribution from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Absent a fraudulent claim by the debt collector, the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the filing of claims against the debtor’s estate. So how could a debt collector be sued for doing what the Code allows? It could happen if debts a collector actually holds are barred from enforcement under a state statute of limitations.

Key Points

In the November/December 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware addressing the meaning of “unreasonably small capital” in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two rulings thus far in 2016 (October 2015 Term) involving issues of bankruptcy law. In the first, Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 194 L. Ed. 2d 655, 2016 BL 154812 (2016), the Court addressed the scope of section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which bars the discharge of any debt of an individual debtor for money, property, services, or credit to the extent obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition."